Talk:Mordin Solus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Erachima (talk · contribs) 06:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting this article On Hold pending the address of some concerns. Observations in more or less random order:

Spelling/grammar issues are relatively minor, but it does need another read-through. "cruing", "were later announced to being released", etc.
Fixed those ones, will look through the article later with a fresher head. – Mr. Stellarum (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image use is OK on the legal side, but the balling up of all the illustrations into one spot is messy. If the opportunity arises to change this in the course of reorganization, do so.
Noted. I'd be willing to remove the grey alien image, but the core problem is really with the Clint Eastwood and concept art images, and they're not so easily separable without outright sacrificing one. – Mr. Stellarum (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section will be difficult to follow for people unacquainted with the plot. Weird priorities as well. For instance, the text breaks flow to explain what the "Genophage" is when that term could trivially be written around to avoid having to introduce jargon in the lead (e.g. "artificial sterility plague") but neither explains nor offers a link that explains what a Krogan is.

The lead is also choppy and in too many paragraphs for the amount of content it contains. I would suggest merging the first three paragraphs into two more substantial ones.
I've merged the first two paragraphs for now, but personally I don't really see the problem with shorter paragraphs. I can probably expand on the second paragraph a bit.

Spot-checks of citations are coming up clean as far as use of the text from within them goes, but I'm going to have to take issue with at least one source: Brian Albert's "The Top 10 Secret Organizations In Games." was a piece of intern-generated clickbait lacking even a veneer of critical authority. In terms of reception sources, that's somewhere below "a famous person retweeted a compliment about it" and isn't going to cut it as an RS. I'll have to review the sources in more detail later, but wrt Albert's writing, safe bet is that his recent work for IGN is citeable, while earlier stuff is going to at the very least require judgment calls.
The Secret Organizations source is no hard loss, though Game Informer is pretty solidly considered a reliable source. – Mr. Stellarum (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For news and editorial, sure. But, again, intern-generated clickbait. Albert was not a real staff writer or editor for GI at the time and that list isn't presented as representing any sort of official opinion by GI. Nor was he an outside expert whose opinions would stand on their own as a relevant piece of critical praise. If similar articles are being used elsewhere, that's a wider sourcing concern. --erachima talk 01:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the source. See any other questionable sources, just post here. – Mr. Stellarum (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article currently offers virtually no discussion of the character's effect on gameplay, which is a glaring omission in article breadth for a video game character. This is the largest flaw.
Honestly, there's only so much I can say for this. Mass Effect's an RPG, and it's one that puts a lot of focus on plot and dialogue. In ME3, his only real "gameplay" benefit is a small increase to the "war assets" count, which effect the ending a bit, but that almost seems irrelevant and is the same even if Mordin is replaced with Padok. I could expand on his role as a party member in ME2, and I will try to find any sources talking about it, but design-wise BioWare's characters tend to be built around plot and characterisation rather than gameplay benefit (as opposed to, say, many fighting game characters), and most others talk about them for similar reasons. – Mr. Stellarum (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the relatively small length of the Merchandise section, as well as the fact that Appearances already contains a section on a comic, it would flow better to make Merchandise a fourth sub-section of Appearances than leave it tacked on the end like it is now. Y
Done this, no real objection. – Mr. Stellarum (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to seeing this page improved. --erachima talk 06:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for reviewing this, expected it would take longer to get around to it. I'll have a larger look tomorrow, but I'll have a brief look over your comments. – Mr. Stellarum (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog at GAN is horrifying. My own priorities for what order to review things in are based roughly on how long it'll take me, how likely it appears that the review will be answered quickly, and the article not being about another goddamn highway. --erachima talk 01:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are currently about ten highways up for GA. Gotta love them highways. – Mr. Stellarum (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Erachima and Bellum Stellarum, sending a ping since this review looks to have petered out—no edits since the 18th czar ♔ 01:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its been over a month since the reviewer made any edits on the site. As well as the nominator hasn't responded to messages on whether or not they will be continuing to work on the article. As such, as an uninvolved editor of all of this, I will be closing this review as Failed. If anyone objects to this discussion they can either re-nominate the article to GAN or take it to GAR to contest this choice. GamerPro64 16:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]