Talk:Kingdom of Loathing/GA3

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (

   lists

   ):

   • Mostly good, except for being somewhat choppy with small paragraphs. Combine one- and two-sentence paragraphs into larger bits. Avoid language such as this: "...is said to have influenced..." (in the lead). Who has said this? See my comments below about this particular claim.

   Several short paragraphs combined, weaselish language removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   • Fix the disambiguated links.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

   • Plenty of citations to blogs which don't seem particularly noteworthy, except for having commentary on this game.

   In general, I've tried to use blogs only when they are a) an interview with one of the game's creators, which is likely to be reliable if an editorial on the same blog would not be or b) a review, which is someone's opinion anyway, so reliability is less of an issue. Even an unreliable source is unlikely to lie about whether it liked a game or not. If there are any specific sources you don't like, I can remove them. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   • See comments below about un-sourced and weakly-supported claims.
   • Some issues with a couple external links. Check those out. I HIGHLY recommend fixing the citations with more information (author, date, publisher, etc) and using archived versions of the websites when possible.

   I've added archived versions of everything I could find on the way-back machine. Not sure what to do for pages that are not listed there. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers the broad details well. Not sure why the radio bit deserves its own subsection. It's just two sentences, so just merge into the main section.

4. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • Article contains little in the way of negative criticism. What else has been said about it? As it stands, the reviews seems to mainly be from blogs of little notability. Has the game been noticed by the major game reviewers and media outlets? They should be featured prominently.

   I've added a little more negative criticism. Unfortunately, though, the reviews listed are the only ones I could find. The game has not been reviewed in the mainstream gaming media.

   • The leads says "...and is said to have influenced several other online games." This doesn't seem well supported in the article, or even in the accompanying references. A barely-notable game being called a KoL "clone" and a blog reference that Mafia Wars fights are similar to KoL gameplay is VERY weak to make this somewhat grandiose claim.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems pretty stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have

   suitable captions

   ):

   • Both images need appropriate captions and alt-text. The logo has an un-sourced explanation of the slogan. It's OR until it's referenced.
   • The second image seems to have a warning about it needing to be a smaller size. Check into that.

7. Overall: Article needs some work to get up to GA status. I'll put it on hold for 7 days. Improvements made. Article promoted.

   Pass/Fail:

Thank you for your review! I'll try to fix these issues in the next couple of days. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made several changes in accordance with your review. Let me know if I have missed anything. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the improvements. I don't really see what else needs to be addressed here for GA, so I'm promoting it. AstroCog (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]