Jump to content

Talk:Steep (video game)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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.


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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 17:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

[edit]
[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]

Gameplay

[edit]

Story

[edit]

In hindsight, I went a bot overboard with this section. I wanted to include everything an article could include, such as a setting and a story. But the game lacks an actual story and naming all mountains is unnecessary detail. Most information can be found in the gameplay section. Thus, I have decided to shelve this section altogehter and include all necessary information in the gameplay section.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Development

[edit]

Reception

[edit]

Notes & References

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]
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:
Comments
  • Hi! I've completed the review. I've placed on hold, but I know a lot of editors would have closed as fail. There's a few major issues with the proposal, but I will give you a couple days to reply and see if you can edit them (I'm not a fan of failing a review, if there is any chance the issues can be resolved.) Here's what I've got:
  1. Prose is bad in places. Including spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. I've highlighted a few above.
  2. Issues around Original research. The setting section does need to be cited.
  3. I will also need to investigate copyvio issues that this article might have. To help with this - condense the quotes in the reception.

I'll leave this open for a few days. Let me know if you require more information. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to adress all of your suggestion within this week.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I adressed all of your concerns except for the reception section, which I will improve over the next days. Please let me now if you have more suggestions!--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since I had worked on the article before for WP:DYK, I simply wanted to add some simple comments. I hope all of you won't mind my sudden intrusion. The lead should include some information about development, you can add a gameplay screenshot in the gameplay section. Digital Chumps, XGN and VGChartz are not considered as reliable sources. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I didn't see those. Two of those are listed as unreliable, so need to be removed. I couldn't find XGN listed on WP:VG/RS. Simply not being considered as reliable isn't grounds for not using a source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know when you are happy DasallmächtigeJ, and I'll have another look through Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By now I have (hopefully) adressed all of your concerns. If you wish for any more additions/changes, please let me know!--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll take another look at the article tomorrow. For future reference if you are worried about spelling/grammar errors in the article, contact WP:GOCE, and request a review before nominating to GA. They do great work, and saves having to do so much work at the other end. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.