Talk:Clock Tower II: The Struggle Within/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 00:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have blanked out the review as I am going to attempt to redo this according to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#GAN_review_spree. I have also set the review as "on hold" and removed the good article template from the article itself and set the GA template on the talk page back to what it was previously per your request on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#GAN_review_spree. I apologize that you were not satisfied with the review and am attempting to correct that situation.

I do not have many concerns over this article meeting the good article criteria. However, I did notice that Clock Tower (series) and Clock Tower 3 have a development/history section, but that this article does not. Do you think it would be possible to add one TarkusAB? In the meantime, I have placed this review

On hold while the concern is addressed. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: I certainly appreciate your willingness to re-do the GAR. I believe some very good points were brought up in the discussion with others. The lack of a development section is a large oversight. A GA should cover all aspects of the topic, and the development and release history of the game is a key discussion that is omitted. I couldn't find any details on the game's development during my research and I was itching to get the Clock Tower series to a Good Topic status, so I thought it would be OK, but I've been swayed otherwise. I found a source that could help expand the article in this sense, but I need to get a copy shipped from Japan and translate it. That will take some time. With that being said, I did not intend to re-nominate it at this time. I think it's best to fail this nomination, and I will re-nominate it when it's ready.

I will be renominating Clock Tower (series) but given the quality of the reviews I've seen, I'd rather that article, and others nominated by me, be reviewed by a more experienced reviewer at this time. My concern is that your reviews identified no issues. Reviewers will often: correct a fact, suggest how to rework phrases, provide clarity to passages that need it, identify formatting issues, etc. None of us are perfect, and its these types of details that provide the impression that the reviewer read through the article thoroughly. However, I certainly welcome comments from you on how to improve these articles, and once you have some more experience with GAs, welcome another full GAR in the future. TarkusAB^talk 23:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TarkusAB: Very well, I have failed the nomination per your request. It is a shame, but I understand where you are coming from. You are sure that you do not want me to restart the reviews, now that I have a better idea of what is expected? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: If you want to try reviewing Clock Tower (series) again, I would be OK with that as long as you request a second opinion before closing the review. Although you have a better idea, true experience will come in time by watching others conduct reviews and having your articles reviewed themselves. TarkusAB^talk 11:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. I will restart the review on Clock Tower (series) shortly. Thank you for the opportunity TarkusAB to correct the error. Seeking a second opinion is something I plan to do in the immediate future on any future GA reviews until I have more experience. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]