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

Reviewer: Sjones23 ( talk · contribs) 02:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):

   Dead citations have been replaced. Will check for plagiarism and copyvios a bit later.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a ( major aspects): b ( focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Discussion

@ Hahc21: I'm placing this review on hold for now. Since you are a mentor for GAs in regards to video games, can you please look into the issues I have regarding the OR and copyvio concerns? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Sjones23: What concerns do you have? I can help to address them if I know what they are. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I wanted to double check to see if there's OR or any copyvios, as well as to make sure that all of the dead citations have to be replaced. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply

If it helps, on copyright violations, I'll refer you to Earwig's Copyvio detector, which shows no likely violations and what does have a percentage is because a direct quote is used. Checklinks shows me no dead links, and everything should be archived regardless of whether or not it was a dead link to begin with. On OR, I can give you only my personal assurance that I vetted everything out, but even I will admit I'm not 100% foolproof. I am certainly glad to wait until you get to hear back, but hopefully this helps your review. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I think it looks good to me. No major copyright violations or original research here. Unless someone objects, I'll wait for a few more days before I pass or fail it. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply

No further objections. This article has now been passed. Good work. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply