Talk:Mighty Jill Off/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: AddThreeAndFive (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I couldn't find any spelling or grammar errors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good lead, no needless profanity, no weasel words. Everything looks good.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There's plenty of references.
	2b. 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).	Everything that needs to be is sourced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None that I found.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Needs more on gameplay.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	A nice, concise style.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit war.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All the images have proper copyright notices.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The captions and images are appropriate.
	7. Overall assessment.	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)[reply]

Second opinion[edit]

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)[reply]

I'll get to this ASAP. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) [reply]

Due to the long time this has been open, I'm closing the nomination. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]