Talk:Star Wars: Jedi Knight/GA1

GA Review

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

Well-written

1. 1. the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
      1. Comment - The series is often refered to as Dark Forces in the prose, while the title and first sentance implies this is not the primary title the series is known as. The mentions should reflect the primary title throughout the page except for when it was changed or reviews.

         I am lost here. Can you be more specific about what you mean? Nergaal (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable

1. 1. it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
   2. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons
   3. it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage

1. 1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic
      1. Info on the main charter from the latest game is also needed in the plot overview section and it's basic storyline. Also the gameplay section is lacking in detail. It misses points like multiplayer, interation with non-hostiles through cutscenes and the differences in the latest game in how gemeplay flows differently.

         Exapanded. AnomieBOT should fix the broken links soon. Nergaal (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
      1. The development section looks like it could be cleaned up to me.

         cleaned up a bit. Nergaal (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
3. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images

1. 1. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
      1. The box-art barely may pass, though a stronger one should be used. The other two do not. The does not say where it came from and the logo says it may be possible to replace as well as not being sure about the resolution size. See Popotan's images for ideas of what a strong copyright notice is.

         You are saying that File:Jedi Knight Logo.jpg is ok to use, while the other two should be chopped off? Nergaal (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

         No, they are all fine in theory, but they need their reasoning strengthened to comply to wikiedia's standards. FE: The logo, in theory, is fine, but an adequet reason needs to be given why it's important to the article. The same for the others. How does it enhance the article and why wouldn't a free image be better.陣内_Jinnai 03:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

         How's now? Nergaal (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

         fixed

2. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Conclusion: - There are some issues with images that need to be delt with as well as info on the last game and the series title. Nothing here seems enough that a reasonable amount of time couldn't fix.陣内_Jinnai 00:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

All issues look to have been resolved. Good job.陣内_Jinnai 15:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)