Talk:Doomfist/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 10:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- "whose design is based on a powerful, cybernetic gauntlet" - this doesn't read right to me. Would it be better to say his weaponry is based on a gauntlet?
- The design is based on a gauntlet because the gauntlet spawned the rest of the design. Sure, his primary in-game use is the gauntlet too, but the gauntlet was designed before the character, and thus his lore and in-game use are based around that feature even more so than other series characters are based around a singular feature. ♔
- "mostly close-range attacks: a charged punch, uppercut, and slam" - I think this would read better if you dropped the semi colon and said "including a charged punch, uppercut..." The message I'm taking from that current wording is that the character is only capable of those three attacks. (I haven't played this game before).
- The colon? Should be fine as indicating a list of close-range attacks, no? ♔
- "(crowd-control from Zarya, Mei, or Reinhardt)" - you've lost me here. Perhaps say "such as the crowd-control moves from Zarya, Mei or Reinhardt", assuming that's what this means. Can you wikilink to any of those characters? Again I can only assume that's what they are.
- Yep. I tried to reduce the amount of character jargon wherever possible (ideally, a general audience could read this without getting caught on character names) ♔
- "whose design is based on a powerful, cybernetic gauntlet" - this doesn't read right to me. Would it be better to say his weaponry is based on a gauntlet?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Citations 24 and 26 are missing retrieval dates.
- Thanks (I personally hide these on my browser) ♔
- Citations 24 and 26 are missing retrieval dates.
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: Well done overall. Looking forward to passing this once minor issues have been addressed. While its not a requirement for GA, I do strongly recommend you archive your sources. It's only a matter of time before the links start rotting. Don't feel obligated, but I have a peer review I'm looking for comments at if you're interested. Freikorp (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, @Freikorp! Addressed the above czar 03:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Looking good. Happy for this to pass now. Freikorp (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, @Freikorp! Addressed the above czar 03:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail: Well done overall. Looking forward to passing this once minor issues have been addressed. While its not a requirement for GA, I do strongly recommend you archive your sources. It's only a matter of time before the links start rotting. Don't feel obligated, but I have a peer review I'm looking for comments at if you're interested. Freikorp (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
