Talk:FTL: Faster Than Light/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 04:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the lead should at least mention its first release date and platform
The lead mentions nothing about the game's reception.
The Synopsis section should have at least one source (since it is really just a simple setting section)
The player must "jump" the ship between waypoints, normally unaware what awaits at each point, making headway to an "exit" point leading to the next sector until the Federation is reached - Rephrase it to "The player must "jump" the ship between waypoints, normally unaware what awaits at each point, and make headway to an "exit" point leading to the next sector until the Federation is reached"
causes the rebel fleet to occupy more of the space in each sector. - What does this mean?
"Players" or "the player". Choose one
The gameplay section is completely unsourced besides the last sentence in the last paragraph.
"the initial concept was as simple as wanting to put the player in the commander's chair instead of the pilot's", - can be paraphrased
anticipate a 10% success rate - which aspect? Completing the game? Completing a mission?
designed "to be hard, but not frustrating" - Rephrased it to something similar to "designed to be challenging without discouraging the player." Eliminate a quotation marks.
Wikilink permadeath
PC Gamer magazine offered an early preview of the game that created more media interest in time for the Independent Games Festival at the March 2012 Games Developer Conference - I don't think that the source clearly states that the PC Gamer preview created media interest.
The OnLive cloud-based gaming service included FTL and other Independent Games Festival finalists for several weeks around the conference. - Included in what?
The development section can be further divided into several subsections. E.g. Funding, design etc.
Subset Games has stated that they would not likely create a direct sequel to FTL to through sales of FTL to continue to fund their future projects can be moved to a new section called sequel.
a pulsar environmental hazard which periodically disable a ship's systems to All of the expansion's content can be disabled within the game if preferred. - All these are not included in the source.
These sources aren't used for the development section

Would be great if you actually mention the actual game's release date. The "FTL: Advanced Edition" section should be renamed to "Release".
It was reviewed by a lot of critics, and the section should be expanded significantly.
For modern games, scores from GR is unnecessary per the template guideline
The reviewers you use don't seem to be reliable or notable (GameCritics, Game Scouts etc.)
Any sales information?
This can replaced source 18. (secondary source)
Should be GameSpot not Gamespot, GameSpy not Gamespy
NeoGAFs result shouldn't be used as they are user generated. They can be included if reliable sources write about them.
All the awards should be grouped together in one single paragraph.
4 dead links, and the sources from Penny Arcade don't seem to be working.
No significant problems with close paraphrasing

Overall

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list corporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

This is a quality article, and the development section looks fantastic. However, I got to say that the gameplay, reception and the lead suffer from quite a lot of problems, which I think will take quite a long time to fix. The article is reaching the GA status, but there is a lot of room for improvement. Leaving this on hold. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Omni Flames: Can I get a progress update? AdrianGamer (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianGamer: Oh, right sorry! I've done some of the things you asked for [1] but I've still got some more to do. I plan to do it in the next couple of days or so. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 20:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Omni Flames: - Can I get another progress update? It was left on hold for 16 days already and I don't think it is appropriate to leave a review on hold for this long. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should decline it. I'm going to do some work on the article, but it will probably take some time, I'll be back with another nom after. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 05:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]