Talk:Halo Wars 2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Prinsgezinde (talk · contribs) 12:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

An impressively extensive article, props to nominator The1337gamer and everyone else who contributed.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Article follows the MOS, clarifies its fictional nature and has little to no more spelling/grammar mistakes.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
E̶n̶t̶i̶r̶e̶ ̶"̶S̶t̶o̶r̶y̶"̶ ̶s̶u̶b̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶"̶P̶l̶o̶t̶"̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶n̶s̶o̶u̶r̶c̶e̶d̶

Article is well sourced and all the necessary inline citations to back up its claims.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Focuses exclusively on all aspects of the game without going too much into other games of the franchise or unnecessary details.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Reception is well described, giving proportionate attention to positive and negative reactions
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No disputes, naturally.
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):
Three images related to a copyrighted video game is a fairly good amount. The two that feature copyrighted material have sufficient fair use rationales.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Passed! A thoroughly well done job.

@Prinsgezinde: Thanks for the review. I've corrected the grammar issues. Regarding the unsourced story section, video game plots follow the same conventions as film plots (WP:FILMPLOT), so they generally don't require references. E.g.: Halo: Reach and many other VG articles passed featured article review with entirely unsourced plot sections. Let me know if that's a satisfactory explanation. I could add citations and quotes of individual scenes in the game but it's rather tedious and so it's usually not worth it unless there is a dispute over the plot section. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent! That was actually bugging me too.. I was unaware of said policy but completely support it, as plot material is so easily verifiable (and full of spoilers) that no non-wiki source would normally describe it. In that case there are no more issues. Well done. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]