Talk:Genshin Impact/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Namcokid47 (talk · contribs) 01:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this soon. I can already tell there are some real problems with it, particularily its reception and incredibly long plot section, but I'll address that in the actual review. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 01:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd chime in with my thoughts: I think Characters and setting should be merged into a single setting; there's a lot of unnecessary detail in there! ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I've added it to the list of issues I have. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NightFire19 I've had a look through the article. Though I have several problems with it, I've found two really big ones that need immediate attention to:

Lots of things are missing citations, specifically the entirety of the "setting" and "characters" subsections (which I'd also merge into one) have no citations. For an article like this , that is a real problem, and lots of the writing feels like WP:GAMECRUFT. It doesn't do a proper job at explaining these characters and the significance they hold, and it's not really that interesting to read. What significance does Liyue Qixing hold, for example? Why are they worth mentioning?
The reception is really weak. Why is it so short? The box lists reviews from eight different publications and only a few of them are actually in the next. This seems like a pretty big game, so I don't see the reason to have a reception area that small on an article that is otherwise pretty extensive. There's also an unnecessary amount of subsections, which can easily be merged with other parts of the page (ex. "Controversy and censorship" can easily be put into "Development and release", that's typically where it belongs). Subsections are intended for pages that have a lot of info on subjects related to other sections — I find them rather useless here since there's not a lot of info that warrants having them.

I have others as well, but I'm still reading over the page so I'll add them all here when I'm done. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking over the article. The character section being overly detailed was just someone adding in extra details to the characters, even though the edit was reverted. I'm relatively new to this and was engaged in an edit war over someone who insisted on putting "online-only" on the first sentence even though it goes against manual of style. I decided not to keep reverting as I had better things to do in the article such as making sure the citations are from reliable sources and properly sourcing the gameplay section. I will make sure to work on sourcing the setting/characters section and merging them. As for reception I did list as many reviews from the listed template, as well as from other reputable sources like Forbes and Washington Post. I didn't include them in the section itself because I felt like it would become reptitive and redundant to go through the list of things each reviewer liked/didn't like as there's tons of overlap. I will definitely add to that section though, and thank you for feedback. I've been doing a lot of work on this article and it was recently bumped up to a "B" quality rating so I wanted to see what needed to be done to elevate this to Good Article. NightFire19 (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small update, since there's no reputable source that contains setting for the setting of the game, I've had to go over the game's dialogue and cite directly from it, so it'll be a slow process. Since my last post there have been edits that keep adding 'gamecruft' to the characters section.NightFire19 (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really recommending starting a discussion about edit warring on the Talk page (if there isn't one already). If the page isn't stable by the end of the GA review, and people are fighting over content, it could fail because of that. Better to deal with it now! ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any edit warring in the page. Where is this taking place? Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 18:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the Talk page discussion about the "online-only" phrase. The edit warring ceased a while ago. NightFire19 (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NightFire19 Been meaning to get back to this for a while, but unfortunately, I feel I'm not really able to go forward with this. It's not that this is a bad page or it doesn't meet the GA criteria, but its length and amount of content makes me feel I'm unable to really give this a proper review. Are you okay with me requesting for a second opinion on this? I'm sure whoever else decides to review can do a better job than myself. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 01:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. NightFire19 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why I'm following this page, but here I am. If you are willing to wait a week, Nightfire19, I'll pick it up. If you aren't (this was picked up on November 27, so fair enough), then Namcokid47 will have to look around WT:VG. I'd try sooner but I'm moving house this week and have other wiki-stuff going on right now. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with that. Look forward to your review. NightFire19 (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Namcokid47: I just don't have time for this and I'm sorry for wasting NightFire's time. Will you be able to pick it back up, or should we ask NightFire19 to re-nom? I'll make a post at WP:VG asking if someone could pick it up. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This review appears dead; NightFire19 You should probably re-nominate this for GA at this point. --Pres N 20:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right I'm closing this nomination as failed. This should not have been up as long as it has. GamerPro64 12:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]