Talk:Mega Man X5/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) 02:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

The article has a proper References section. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

b. (citations to reliable sources):

All sources cited are recognized as either reliable sources or situational sources cited in the appropriate manner.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

c. (OR):

Spotcheck was performed, no original research was done or statements not supported by the checked sources. More specifically on sources [18], which does discuss the basis for the navigator's personality, [26] and [27] which do discuss the localization issues regarding naming, and in Reception [40] and [42], where the statements cited do match what's being said in their respective reviews.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

No copyright violations done. The majority of the article is original writing and quotes applied as needed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed) Congrats! You addressed any issues I brought up quickly and overall the article is in a really good and informative state. Well done!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]