Talk:Revolution Software/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 21:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: One found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: None found. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The lead does not adequately summarise the article, see WP:LEAD

There is an undue use of promotional and POV language.

The is a mixture of inline hyperlinks and citations.

The prose is not very good, not "reasonably well written".

Not well organised, information needs to be presented logically. Please read WP:MoS and subpages.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
What makes GameFAQs and Revfans reliable sources?

Most of the sources are WP:Primary sources. This needs good third party sources.

Wikipedia can not be used as a source.

There is no sourcing for game releases in the Games section.

Sources used for citations are also present in the external links section which is not permitted, see WP:EL
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
No mention of sales figures; no real indication of whether this company meets the WP:CORP guidelines.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Appears overly promotional
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
stable
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The specific source of the image needs to be provided.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Shoddily put together, please read the good article criteria and make sure that this article meetrs them before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]