Talk:Far Lands

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 02:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jishara (talk · contribs) 16:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I'll review this one! Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: just a few small things below. Let me know when you get a chance to update. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Jishara: Thank you for reviewing! If your only comments are regarding the 2 million blocks comment and voxels: I've corrected it to say 2.8 million instead of simply 2 million. Regarding voxels, I think this is an appropriate instance of technically deviating from the source a bit because a voxel is just the technical term of a 3D-generated cube in computing, and both cited sources there do make it pretty clear the game is made up of cubes/blocks. So if anything it's just an alternate wording. λ NegativeMP1 18:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good! Now that that's cleared, it's just the alt text left - ping me when it's done and I'll approve. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Done. λ NegativeMP1 19:01, 2 October 2026 (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, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables):

   Prose is fine and readable/understandable quite easily. MoS is followed in all relevant cases

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

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

   Highest copyvio is really low and made up of unrephrasable phrases. Everything's referenced, and the ref section is laid out well. A couple of sourcing errors - I didn't see any mention of it being made up of voxels in the supporting sources, and the source says about 2.8 million, not 2 million, blocks out at the debug version. The rest checks out.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Keeps focused, is pretty broad and extensive in its coverage of this really specific thing but doesn't get off of it at all.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral, balanced, nothing that comes off as though it shouldn't be in Wikipediavoice.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No concerns about stability- minimal reverts and no edit wars.

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

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

   One fair use image that makes sense with an appropriate caption. Needs alt text, though.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.