Talk:Untitled Goose Game/GA1
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 18:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey MyCatIsAChonk, I'll be reviewing this article using the table below. Comments to follow soon (if I can't get round to it today, I hope it will be within the next few days). I note that you are one of the most recent contributors to the article but not a major contributor (if we're going by proportion of the total edits!). Not a problem if you are familiar with, or willing to become familiar with, the content and sources. I also see you've pinged the talk page which is helpful. Looking forward to starting! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 18:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hey there, I do realize I haven't edited the article much, but after checking through the citations and the prose itself, I didn't see much room for improvement; credit for the most contributions goes to @Stefvanschie, @Masem, and @Angeldeb82. I am familiar with the article, so if there are any changes you need to be made, I can try to improve it ASAP. Thanks for reviewing! -MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @MyCatIsAChonk, I have completed the initial review with a few comments/suggestions in the table below. Overall it is a really well-written article which isn't far from being a GA. Thank you everyone for your on this. Do let me know if you have any questions! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 22:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've made all the changes you suggested, and some others as well. Are you willing to re-review it, or should I re-nominate it? Thanks! -MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Unexpectedlydian MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- @MyCatIsAChonk Perfect, thank you! No need to re-nominate. I have crossed off all of the completed changes in the table below. Thanks for addressing the comments so quickly. Very happy for this to be promoted to GA now, well done :) Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 22:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- @UnexpectedlydianThanks for reviewing! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- @MyCatIsAChonk Perfect, thank you! No need to re-nominate. I have crossed off all of the completed changes in the table below. Thanks for addressing the comments so quickly. Very happy for this to be promoted to GA now, well done :) Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 22:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Unexpectedlydian MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've made all the changes you suggested, and some others as well. Are you willing to re-review it, or should I re-nominate it? Thanks! -MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @MyCatIsAChonk, I have completed the initial review with a few comments/suggestions in the table below. Overall it is a really well-written article which isn't far from being a GA. Thank you everyone for your on this. Do let me know if you have any questions! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 22:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Lead
Gameplay
Development and release
Reception
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Lead
Layout Words to watch
Fiction
List incorporation
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
Source check
Fox, Chris (2 October 2019) Lee, Dami (23 September 2019) Macy, Seth G. (4 October 2017)
Lum, Patrick (30 October 2018) Couture, Joel (17 February 2020) Andriessen, CJ (20 September 2019) Wallace, Kimberley (20 September 2019)
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |