Talk:Depression Quest/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I played this... I'll have the review complete within 24 hours. JAGUAR 17:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

The lead needs to be expanded in order to summarise the article and comply per WP:LEAD. Typically of an article this size it should be at least two paragraphs long and should contain much more on development and reception
"first released for the web on February 14, 2013.[1][2][3]" - per WP:LEADCITE, citations in the lead are discouraged unless it's citing controversial information. I realise that the Gamergate controversy citation should be kept, but the citations for the release date should be moved to the infobox
- Done sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend splitting the Gameplay section into two paragraphs and merging the short sentence ("the game has 40,000 words of text") into one of the paragraphs, to improve flow of the prose
- Done sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No aggregate scores for Reception?
- No, not enough reviews. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 15:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"and expressed optimism in its potential to educate people about the disease" - am I reading this right? Did she just say that depression is a disease?!
- Fixed sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

No dead links

On hold

A short and compact article with some structure issues, I think an expansion of the lead and some re-organisation of a few sections is required. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days, good luck JAGUAR 17:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. Please note that this is a drive-by nomination (I had no prior edits to the article), and I may not be able to access the internet from tomorrow to August 5. I may not be able to answer any questions during that time, which means the review may need to be placed on hold for a longer time. I never expected a review so soon. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I saw it in the GAN queue and thought I'd review it, even I never expected to finish it so soon. If you like, I can leave it on hold for when you come back or either one of us could request that someone else take handle the comments in your absence, it's up to you? Either way I'm happy to leave it on hold for whatever is best for you. JAGUAR 17:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

The article currently doesn't cover how conspiracy theories about the game started the Gamergate controversy (See Gamergate controversy#History). These events should be integrated into the article. I'd add them, but I don't want to make too many big independent changes to an article while someone else is trying to get in through GAR.Brustopher (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that my initial comments are far too short, but with the being said, I usually tend to focus on prose and organisational issues at first. Yeah, a little more regarding the Gamergate controversy would be needed in this article I think. JAGUAR 20:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for this, but @Jaguar: you may as well fail the article for now. The article still needs expanding, but I am not very familiar with GamerGate, so other users would do a better job than me. Article is also not very stable. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to try and get the article to GA status, if Jaguar doesn't think the situation is completely hopeless. I don't think there's that much more major work left to do. Also I'd disagree that the article isn't stable, there hasn't really been a content dispute centered on this page for almost a year now, most of the reverts and edit warring is with drive by IP editors and BLP vandals. Brustopher (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to leave this on hold. I agree that the situation isn't hopeless and nothing particularly major needs to be added here. I think a bit on the GamerGate controversy and how this game got involved in the ordeal would be required seeing as this game received a lot of publicity. The page is already semi-protected, so don't worry about vandal IPs. If you get stuck on what to add about GamerGate, there's plenty of news coverage out there - or if it's irrelevant, some people at WT:VG would definitely be more well-versed in the controversy that I am. JAGUAR 22:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar I've expanded the lede, and added more on Quinn's harassment and Gamergate. Brustopher (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Sorry for leaving this so long. I've had another look at the article and it should now satisfy the comprehensiveness part of the criteria. Other than that, the references are all reliable, correctly formatted and used properly within the context. The stuff about GamerGate should be fine too, but at the end of the day they are two different things. Anyway, I'll be promoting this now. If anyone has any concerns they are free to take it to the talk page. JAGUAR 14:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]