GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri ( talk · contribs) 05:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Good Article Checklist
Good Article review progress box
|
Comments: Very short and nothing on the development of the contest and its origins. The details are a bit lacking and this is despite having four events throughout the history. Each event seems to get a paragraph of content and it can be quite lacking for the reader. This makes it more inline with a C class article as a result. No background information is provided on the competitors, or the winners for that matter, and it just seems to be more of the name-dropping that really doesn't add to the context. The prose does need some fixes, so please give it a copyedit after filling in some more details. It seems pointless to post up the issues that I found when they can be rectified in the expansions. Some of the weaknesses of the article is the lack of coverage on the runner-up. Of the winners, no development is given for their works, despite the lengthy period given in which to develop the game. For winners like Epigenesis - I'd expect some details, maybe even their own article, because these entries are quite interesting and the reader should have some context on the work needed to produce the winning entry and why it won. Those are both things I'd expect under the broad and focused aspect. Placing it on hold now. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri ( talk · contribs) 05:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Good Article Checklist
Good Article review progress box
|
Comments: Very short and nothing on the development of the contest and its origins. The details are a bit lacking and this is despite having four events throughout the history. Each event seems to get a paragraph of content and it can be quite lacking for the reader. This makes it more inline with a C class article as a result. No background information is provided on the competitors, or the winners for that matter, and it just seems to be more of the name-dropping that really doesn't add to the context. The prose does need some fixes, so please give it a copyedit after filling in some more details. It seems pointless to post up the issues that I found when they can be rectified in the expansions. Some of the weaknesses of the article is the lack of coverage on the runner-up. Of the winners, no development is given for their works, despite the lengthy period given in which to develop the game. For winners like Epigenesis - I'd expect some details, maybe even their own article, because these entries are quite interesting and the reader should have some context on the work needed to produce the winning entry and why it won. Those are both things I'd expect under the broad and focused aspect. Placing it on hold now. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)