Talk:Cry On

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cry On/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MsDusa (talk · contribs) 22:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Production

• I figure it's implied that they were a new studio at the time given that it is past tense
• Multiple types of control scheme > Multiple control schemes
• "The evoking" > "The evocation"

Cancellation and legacy

• You could stand to summarize the first quotation.

That's about it.

@MsDusa: Done. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

pog - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)