Talk:Chocolatier (video game)/GA1

GA Review

Hi. I'm going to review this GAC! Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I read this, and I cleaned up some of the prose and grammar, but I'm going to put this on hold because I don't think it properly addresses everything that it could (GA requirement #3). Below are some of my suggestions:

The info about the sequel is not incredibly relevant to this article, so I'm not sure about putting it in the lead. Also, it's location in Development makes it look like a sloppy afterthought, so I'd put it in a separate Legacy section or something, but I didn't want to do it without your comments. :)
You definately need the names of the three BigSplash founders, as well as info about where they work.
The info about BigSplash's original game is too vague. Did it have a name? What was it about? You mention that Chocolatier was aimed at women, a different demographic than their original game was going for. Please add info.
Are there any numbers about how much this game has sold? That'd be nice if it's possible.

Other than that... everything should be okay. It looks like this article was built very quickly, so good job! Just tell me when you finish! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time reading the article and making edits, I'd like to bounce some ideas off you before trying to do what needs doing:

The mention of Chocolatier 2 in development was meant to be a jumping-off point for writing a further article, would it be OK to just remove it? I will try and make a legacy section if it's your wish, but I don't usually which is why the sentence was in development.
When you say where they work, do you mean where Big Splash is based?
In both interviews where their prototype is mentioned, the developers are deliberately vague and don't shed any light on its nature. Since they were (admittedly) just trying to rustle up some cash and kick start their studio, it's probably not going to be something they'll shout from the rooftops about, particularly as they've since developed something original and successful.
In terms of being aimed at women, this is in relation to their previous projects whilst employed at other studios, rather than their abortive prototype.
No sales figures that I can find, sorry. Someone another 22:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you got rid of the sequel in the lead. I still think it deserves a place in the article, but the Legacy thing was just an idea (and probably not the best one, to be honest). You could always tack it on at the end of Reception, or you could add it to the infobox thingy at the top of the article. I don't know. It might just be me, but you might want to consider moving it before going for FA.
Where did they work while they were organizing Big Splash?

Too bad about the other info, but I think the article is good enough to pass, so I'm going to promote this article to GA. The above stuff you might want to improve on before you go for FA, and you might consider expanding the lead by one paragraph to be on the safe side. But otherwise, good work!

1.organized, well-written
2.reliable refs
3.relevant info
4.NPOV
5.stable
6.pics have tags

Good job again! Keep working to improve this article and more articles that need help! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a good look into what you've suggested, thank you very much for your time. Someone another 23:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]