![]() | Diamond Trust of London has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 22, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in
Nintendo DS video game
Diamond Trust of London (prototype pictured), players compete to extract
diamonds from
Angola before the implementation of the
Kimberley Process Certification Scheme? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Niwi3 ( talk · contribs) 23:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review.
On a first read, this looks like very impressive work: well-written, well-focused, and proofread. There may be a few issues though:
Overall, very good article. If you have any questions on these points, or if you think I'm being unreasonable, please ask. Thank you. -- Niwi3 ( talk) 23:09, 20 May 2013 (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. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | See above. |
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). | See above. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
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. | Pass. Very good work. |
Should British English be specified? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this game really open source (in the sense of FOSS or OSI)? There is no link to the sources (except for the external link which goes to a repository which does not seem to contain license information), nor is there information about the used license mentioned anywhere else. I think this information should be added if available. Trilarion ( talk) 11:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Diamond Trust of London has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 22, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in
Nintendo DS video game
Diamond Trust of London (prototype pictured), players compete to extract
diamonds from
Angola before the implementation of the
Kimberley Process Certification Scheme? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Niwi3 ( talk · contribs) 23:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review.
On a first read, this looks like very impressive work: well-written, well-focused, and proofread. There may be a few issues though:
Overall, very good article. If you have any questions on these points, or if you think I'm being unreasonable, please ask. Thank you. -- Niwi3 ( talk) 23:09, 20 May 2013 (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. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | See above. |
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). | See above. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
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. | Pass. Very good work. |
Should British English be specified? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this game really open source (in the sense of FOSS or OSI)? There is no link to the sources (except for the external link which goes to a repository which does not seem to contain license information), nor is there information about the used license mentioned anywhere else. I think this information should be added if available. Trilarion ( talk) 11:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)