Talk:Half-Life: Opposing Force/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The article looks good, just a few things need sorting before it's GA quality.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Generally pretty good. A couple of spelling errors I've noticed. "severly" (should be severely) in the Development section, "influencial" in the Reception section (should be influential.) In the Audio section, "who is credited is an employee of Sierra" (should be credited as an employee)

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
(ref 27abcd) This source is a blog. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem to be by somebody associated with the game or a professional blog and so it fails WP:SPS. (ref 28) this source also appears to be self published. Is it reliable?

C. No original research:
A few things that don't seem to match up with the sources here. (ref 2b) In the gameplay section this source is used to source a claim about the game being divided up into chapters with loading causing the only significant pauses in the game. I can't find that in the source. (ref 16c) In the development section it says that the name is also referring to Newtons third law of motion and uses this source after the claim, but the source doesn't mention this. (ref 24) Also in the development section it says "Opposing Force was later one of the first titles to debut on Valve Software's Steam content delivery system 2003", the source only says it's available on Steam and doesn't mention the date.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

The article is almost there. Good luck with these issues. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I got them all. -- Sabre (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. It's unfortunate that the section had to be removed, maybe some sources will turn up. I'm passing the article. Good job. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]