Talk:RuneScape/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
On reviewing this article against the good article criteria, I have decided that the article in its current form does not meet requirements and that there is sufficient work that could not be done in the span of a week. The major issues:

References: Clearly tagged unreliable references are in the article. That's an automatic quickfail right there.
Prose: The prose is very choppy, to the point where it can be hard to read. Get an experienced copyeditor to run through it.
Images: There are waaaay too many fair use images in the article, and very few actually meet WP:NFCC. They need to be trimmed and the remainder's rationales expanded.
Coverage: Mostly good, but there are problems in how content is represented; for example, take a look at WP:FA game articles and see how they do the reception sections, then contrast it to the current reception section which gives undue weight and sometimes uses weasel words. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just knew we needed more editors at that peer review. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]