Talk:Silicon Dreams/GA1
(Redirected from Talk:Silicon Dreams trilogy/GA1)
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- There's some significant problems with in-universe perspective. The setting section, for instance is entirely in-universe. It needs to be reworded to at least portray it from a real-world perspective, as described in WP:WAF (ie, in the present tense). The Kim Kimberly section in particular is far too in-universe, its simply a reiteration of the backstory. From reading that section, I have no idea what the character's role is in the story and why a section has therefore been dedicated to her. I can only presume she is meant to be the protagonist; the role and significance of the of the character should be put forward. There's also a few instances of spelling errors, such as "United Sates" and "instalments" in the intro. Go through the prose to get rid of these errors.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Again, some significant problems here. The primary cause of this is mass overlinking. Do not link common words or terms, and link only when contextually necessary to do so. There is an excess mass of blue in this article, links to things like Literal and figurative language, Settler, disaster, taxes and vocabulary are but a few examples from this article of things that really should not be linked.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- I remain very reluctant to pass an article that has entirely unreferenced sections. The setting section and plot sections should be referenced, even if only using the {{cite video game}} template and primary sources.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Although I acknowledge that this is an old game and thus reception information isn't that easy to come by, I must ask if there is the possibility that the reception section can be expanded. If not, then what we have is fine.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
