Talk:Maid of Sker (video game)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vestigium Leonis (talk · contribs) 11:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

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

---

I will look at this during the weekend.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): Comment: Repetition in the gameplay section (describing the save style twice). I also would recommend to move the information of Sker Ritual to a separate section, as it appears to be a new game and not an addition / DLC. Keep the scores in the template of the reception section and out of the prose. I would also add an opening sentence for sections, to divide the review aspects. See Wikipedia:VG/REC.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Comment: I would suggest to either use three paragraphs for the lead section or expand the two smaller ones to make it look more even.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section): Comment: I recommend to archive sources. Also, the notes in the plot section are not needed if they are part of the regular game experience.

   b. (citations to reliable sources): Comment: Sources need to be improved. The focus needs to be on using sources that are listed as reliable. Limit the use of situational sources (they can still be used though). Avoid sources that are on the list of „inconclusive discussions“. If the source is not named on any of these lists, I would suggest to avoid using it at all, as reliability can not be proven yet. This can be checked on WP:VG/S, and WP:RSP for more general sources. I highly recommend to use the custom Google search engine, which can be found at WP:VG/LRS. Examples: Gamecritics.com (unlisted), Hey Poor Player (inconclusive), Game Rant (situational) A little note on the plot sourcing: The plot does not require sources, as long as it does not include any interpretations (see: WP:VG/PLOT).

   c. (OR): Comment: The gameplay section is possibly containing OR or someone forgot to add in sources after an edit.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail: Comment: I do believe the issues are fixable, so I place the review on hold. I checked the first GA review and noted that improvements were made. Still, the matter of relying on unreliable sources persists, and therefore, warrants further attention and emphasis. Final note: As the nominator seems to be unavailable, I am failing the article in its current state. In case someone is willing to fix the listed issues of both GAN reviews, the article can be nominated again. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)