Talk:The Last of Us Part II/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ImaginesTigers (talk · contribs) 22:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm going to snag this one. You should have my full review (posted all at once) by Friday. ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff came up. Give me till tomorrow! ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm becoming a broken record at this point but things have, once again, come up. I'm really sorry! It's university stuff. Tomorrow by night time you will have the full review. ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The article is structurally sound, and mostly well-written. It is well-supported with a judicious use of references, and contains few glaring omissions. Regardless, I have some suggestions before we promote.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
From the lead: Part II is one of the best-selling PlayStation 4 games and the fastest-selling PlayStation 4 exclusive, selling over four million units in its release weekend. I'd recommend changing this to include the word 'selling' less. I also think the mention of Lev's criticism is not quite specific enough. A little more detail would be useful there, explaining (briefly) what problems critics had with Lev. This problem reappears in the criticism section of the article. Members of the transgender community does not feel entirely right — are all of the critics thereafter trans writers? There's been a lot of discussion about this in particular. Next up we have Audience response. As a section, I like most of what is there. I don't especially like the title, though. As noted within the section, these viewpoints constituted a minority of the game's overall playerbase. Framing it purely as the audience seems strange to me. It also focuses on the Jason Schreier/Schindler's List thing. To be clear, neither he, nor Druckmann, nor Baker can really be conceived of as this game's "audience".

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
There are a few suspicious references. Namely [3] and [10] (guides). Try and find some alternatives for those.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
I'm marking this as in progress because I think they're tied to the issues surrounding "Audience response". I do also wonder if the coverage of crunch isn't sufficient; it might warrant its own section with Development. There has been a lot of discussion outside of Schreier's initial report. Might be worth looking into.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
The game's positive and negative reception is duly considered; I think there are some issues with the sharpness/structuring of the criticism, though.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
As of November 1, page is stable. I won't include page views because the game is still fairly new, and is likely to be inflated.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Review in progress.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pending improvements!

I'll get to the images tomorrow! After you've implemented those changes, I'll go through the article myself and make some small changes here and there to wording/sentences; given that the article might change a little, I always leave that to the end. A pretty good article overall, and looking forward to hearing from you! ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, ImaginesTigers. I've made a few changes to the article, but I wanted to respond to a few of your points here:

I'm not sure that adding more detail about Lev to the lead is suitable; the lead is meant to be a summary, after all, and the specific information can be found within the article. Adding too much specific detail would feel like undue weight, as it only consists of one paragraph in the article itself.
"Members of the transgender community" does not refer to the critics, it refers to members of the community, as mentioned in the sources (specifically NBC News).
The two guides you refer to are from reliable sources, and are allowed to be used per WP:VG/RS.
I've added an extra sentence about Druckmann's response to crunch, but I'm not sure what else could be added; a lot of sites covered the crunch, but none actually provided additional coverage outside of Schreier's report.

Thanks again. Let me know if you have any other concerns. – Rhain ☔ 00:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]