Talk:Mass Effect 2: Overlord/GA1

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (

   lists

   ):

   I had to tweak one duplicate use of the word "pack", but otherwise the prose reads reasonably well. There are a few patches that could use a little tweaking from an experienced copyeditor for sentence fluency, but none of these are major enough to get in the way of this review.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

   Very nicely done with the sources. All appear to be reliable per

   WP:VG/S

   per their usages in the article, and everything appears quite well referenced. Aesthetically, I'd double-check to make sure all references come in number order when using more than one in a sentence, but again, not in the way of this review.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (

   focused

   ):

   Hits all the major points of a video game article: plot, gameplay, development and release, and reception. More than enough real-world content to balance off the fictional elements.

4. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No point of view issues I can see.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Does not appear to be the subject of edit wars.

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have

   suitable captions

   ):

   Two fair-use images. Both have good rationales and are used appropriately. No other images are used.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well done! I'd say we have enough to pass right away. Let me know if you have questions.

Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just beat me to this one, Red Phoenix! Congrats, Niwi, on another quality contribution. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. I wasn't expecting this review to be so good and quick. Cheers :) --Niwi3 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]