Talk:Robbing the Cradle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 03:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a very interesting read so I'll take this one. CR4ZE (t • c) 03:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So I've just completed my first read-through. I have a couple of early thoughts:

• The first couple of sentences in the first paragraph of Development seem to be in need of some clarification. Was Smith's creation of "Return to the Cathedral" directly responsible for his assignment to work on "Robbing the Cradle"? The text doesn't really explain the link between the two levels.

• Smith created "Return to the Cathedral" while working as a junior designer on Thief: The Dark Project. The theories that he came up with to explain this level led to his desire to create "Robbing the Cradle". Made some clarifications in the article.

• The first paragraph of Reception is perhaps a fraction too quotey. Can you paraphrase one or two?

• Check now.

• The firing of Smith seems quite out-of-character for a studio who owed much of the game's success to his work. Is there any point for development on why Smith was fired?

• Added a bit. Deadly Shadows' development was no walk in the park.

• An in-game screenshot of "Robbing the Cradle" would be greatly beneficial, especially given the intricate analysis of the level's art design. Have you tried contacting Ion Storm to see if they have any development screenshots available? Otherwise I think a non-free screenshot of the level would be fully compliant with the NFCC.

• Ion Storm ceased to exist in 2005. I'll try to grab a screenshot tomorrow.

• I'd like to be able to check through both of Gillen's print articles. Is there a way that you can get them to me?

• Gillen released a PDF of the Cradle article here. As for "All the Fun of the Fear", he posted its full text here.

That's it for now. I'll be coming back to do a thorough check of the sources, and another gloss over the prose. From my first read-through, however, I'm very happy with the article. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Glad to hear it, and thanks for the review. Tried to address your concerns above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Great stuff. I'll run through the prose and sources in more detail again tomorrow. Let me know how you go about finding a screenshot. Thanks, CR4ZE (t • c) 16:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Grabbed an image of the mission from Ars Technica that represents the level's aesthetic pretty well, I'd say. See what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Image looks great. CR4ZE (t • c) 08:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Result

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, 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):

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:

   I checked through the prose and the sources (all reliable) and I don't see any lingering problems. Great work. CR4ZE (t • c) 08:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)