Talk:Mighty Jill Off/GA1
GA Review
{{Good article tools}}
Reviewer: AddThreeAndFive (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left" |
| valign="top"
! width="30" | Rate ! width="300"| Attribute ! | Review Comment |
| valign="top"
| | 1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}: | {{GATable/item|1a|yes| I couldn't find any spelling or grammar errors. }} {{GATable/item|1b|yes| Good lead, no needless profanity, no weasel words. Everything looks good. }} |
| valign="top"
| | 2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}: | {{GATable/item|2a|yes| There's plenty of references. }} {{GATable/item|2b|yes| Everything that needs to be is sourced. }} {{GATable/item|2c|yes| None that I found. }} |
| valign="top"
| | 3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}: | {{GATable/item|3a |
| Needs more on gameplay.
}} {{GATable/item|3b|yes| A nice, concise style. }} {{GATable/item|4|yes| }} {{GATable/item|5|yes| No edit war. }} |
| valign="top"
| | 6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}: | {{GATable/item|6a|yes| All the images have proper copyright notices. }} {{GATable/item|6b|yes| The captions and images are appropriate. }} {{GATable/item|7 |
| Based on comments below, I am closing this as "not passing" for now. I understand the nominator has been busy IRL, and that's fine; if you get around to expanding the gameplay section, you can renominate it and I expect it will pass. – Quadell (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
}} |
= Second opinion =
In my opinion, this is close, but has a few remaining weaknesses.
- The lede should summarize all sections of the article. But it barely mentions art design, and does not mention follow-ups. See WP:LEAD for more.
- The "Gameplay and scenario" section is very short, compared to the abundance of information in the art design section. I have not played the game, so I can't say for sure, but it seems like more information could be added. Are there multiple levels? What are they like? Does it side-scroll? Are there named enemies, or merely "spiders"? Etc. Any more you could add here would help.
All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:I'll get to this ASAP. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
To add onto what User:Quadell stated, I also think the "Gameplay and scenario" section is fairly short. I too have never attempted a Good Article review, but I have done extensive reading on the criteria for such and the guideline to follow. This seems to be the only weakness in this article, and once fixed looks like it should be able to attain Good Article Status. Mordecairule 18:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordecairule (talk • contribs)
:Due to the long time this has been open, I'm closing the nomination. – Quadell (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)