Talk:PlayStation/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Basic GA Criteria[edit]

Well-written: ✓ Pass
Verifiable: ✗ Fail - a few sources should either have more information added to them than just an URL and a title. Preferably, use a template such as Cite web or Cite news.
Fixed by editors while the article was on hold. elektrik SHOOS 05:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Broad in coverage: ✓ Pass
Neutral: ✗ Fail - The article contains a controversy section. In the past, dedicated controversy/criticism sections have been seen as jeopardizing the neutrality of an article. If possible, information in that section should be integrated into other sections where applicable. I've tagged the section appropriately to alert interested editors.
Fixed by editors while the article was on hold. elektrik SHOOS 05:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stable: ✓ Pass - Other than the typical vandal I don't see any edit wars or other such disputes which would compromise the integrity of the article.
Illustrated: ✓ Pass - All images are properly tagged and licensed (fair-use-wise). I'd personally look to add more but I don't see the existing amount as not being enough. (If that makes sense.)

Reviewer: elektrik SHOOS 19:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per the recommendations, all references on the page use a Cite Web template while the controversy section of the article has been removed and reintegrated into the Marketing section with a neutral section. The article has also been better illustrated with additional images.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, thanks for fixing! Now go for FA class! elektrik SHOOS 05:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]