GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Etriusus ( talk · contribs) 01:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@
David Fuchs: Hello, I'll be the reviewer for this GAN. Below is the GA criteria that I will use to evaluate the article as a whole. Any recommendations will be listed at the bottom. Please note, I am writing this at work so it may take a bit of time for me to get the entirety of this review out, assessments will be added piecewise. I'll ping you whenever I finish my initial review.
Template for GAN
Templates and Tools for my own convenience:
Done
Strikethrough
Highlight
Common errors: WP:CITELEAD, Wikipedia:CITESTYLE, WP:PUFFERY
1. It is reasonable well written:
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable It contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
3. It is broad in its coverage
4. Is it
neutral?;
5. It is stable
6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by
images, where possible and appropriate;
Recommendations
This is a summary of what needs to be done, detailed points are listed above.
hulking, please remove per WP:PUFFERY
BioShock 2 also deals..The list has an inconsistent citation scheme. Either list the citations out next to their respective theme or cut out any extraneous citations.
BioShock 2 was revealed...This whole paragraph has two citations per sentence, is this necessary?
:In the Reception section, the citations need some work. There appear to be a few
WP:OVERCITE violations, namely the Metacritic score likely does not require 3 citations. Please review the use of so many citations, most sentences don't require 3-4 citations.
the player character in the first gameplease specify that this is Bioshock 1, it is implied but not stated in this paragraph.
"As this sequel is an extension of the first game's storylines and characters, there are direct contrasts between the extreme politics of Andrew Ryan's objectivism and the extreme religion/politics of Lamb's collectivism", he writes. "BioShock 2 specifically asks players to question all sides of debates when extreme stances are taken, and asks players to weigh their decisions in an alternate and complex history." BioShock 2Earwig is picking this up as a copyvio.
Schiesel, Seth (March 5, 2010)source, it is paywalled.
Critics often highlighted the gameplay changes as improvements on the original.The 4 links at the end are excessive. The rest of the paragraph supports this idea enough. It is equally appropriate to expand these out into their own sentences. Source 103 is used twice in this paragraph, where it fundamentally serves the same purpose. Per our earlier conversation, I agree that some of the 2-4 citation sentences are fine as is but this one should be fixed.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Etriusus ( talk · contribs) 01:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@
David Fuchs: Hello, I'll be the reviewer for this GAN. Below is the GA criteria that I will use to evaluate the article as a whole. Any recommendations will be listed at the bottom. Please note, I am writing this at work so it may take a bit of time for me to get the entirety of this review out, assessments will be added piecewise. I'll ping you whenever I finish my initial review.
Template for GAN
Templates and Tools for my own convenience:
Done
Strikethrough
Highlight
Common errors: WP:CITELEAD, Wikipedia:CITESTYLE, WP:PUFFERY
1. It is reasonable well written:
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable It contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
3. It is broad in its coverage
4. Is it
neutral?;
5. It is stable
6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by
images, where possible and appropriate;
Recommendations
This is a summary of what needs to be done, detailed points are listed above.
hulking, please remove per WP:PUFFERY
BioShock 2 also deals..The list has an inconsistent citation scheme. Either list the citations out next to their respective theme or cut out any extraneous citations.
BioShock 2 was revealed...This whole paragraph has two citations per sentence, is this necessary?
:In the Reception section, the citations need some work. There appear to be a few
WP:OVERCITE violations, namely the Metacritic score likely does not require 3 citations. Please review the use of so many citations, most sentences don't require 3-4 citations.
the player character in the first gameplease specify that this is Bioshock 1, it is implied but not stated in this paragraph.
"As this sequel is an extension of the first game's storylines and characters, there are direct contrasts between the extreme politics of Andrew Ryan's objectivism and the extreme religion/politics of Lamb's collectivism", he writes. "BioShock 2 specifically asks players to question all sides of debates when extreme stances are taken, and asks players to weigh their decisions in an alternate and complex history." BioShock 2Earwig is picking this up as a copyvio.
Schiesel, Seth (March 5, 2010)source, it is paywalled.
Critics often highlighted the gameplay changes as improvements on the original.The 4 links at the end are excessive. The rest of the paragraph supports this idea enough. It is equally appropriate to expand these out into their own sentences. Source 103 is used twice in this paragraph, where it fundamentally serves the same purpose. Per our earlier conversation, I agree that some of the 2-4 citation sentences are fine as is but this one should be fixed.