Talk:Clock Tower (series)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 01:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this submission shortly. I can say right off the bat that I do not see any issues in regards to plagiarism (as I incorrectly declined Clock Tower II: The Struggle Within for before immediately correcting the error after it was brought to my attention). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The article is well written and the lead adequately summarizes the information within the article. Word choice is good.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The statements made within the article are backed up by reliable sources and citations are included where appropriate/needed. Copyright violations and plagiarism are not a concern.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article broadly covers the topic. It covers the development, history, overall reception, and common elements between the games of the series.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The article is written from a neutral point of view.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
The article is stable, it has not had a single revert since 11 September 2016, I have no concerns here.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images within the article do have appropriate fair use rationales and do contain captions.
Overall: The article is well written and does not give me cause for concern.
Pass/Fail:
Congratulations to TarkusAB and all other editors who have positively contributed to this article!

@TheSandDoctor: Thanks for reviewing both this article and Clock Tower II. I understand the mistake from earlier so thanks for owning up to it. I hope you have an opportunity to use the On Hold function in the future to better understand its value at creating a dialogue about the article content. TarkusAB^talk 05:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]