Jump to content

Talk:Serious Sam Double D

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Serious Sam Double D/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 16:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lead

  • "Enemies can appear" > "Enemies appear" Best to use an active voice. The next "can" is fine because unlike the enemies, it's about player input.
  • Mastertronic is mentioned in the body, but not the lead or infobox.

Gameplay

  • "Enemies may approach" > "Enemies approach"

Development and release

  • It would be good to mention other games in the Indie Series (same applies to the previous GA we worked on)

Reception

  • Should try to be consistent with how you're citing critics; at times you call it "company's writer," "writer of company," and "writer (company)"

Images

  • Once again, try to make the rationale a bit more specific to the screenshot
  • Cut down the list of weapons in the screenshot caption to "multiple weapons in a stack"
  • Cut down the lead image to "Cover art of Serious Sam Double D"

References

  • From my understanding, Gaming Age is a situationally reliable source, and the project requires that the author be demonstrated as trustworthy.
  • One important thing to note is that a lot of Engadget's sources are actually Joystiq. I'm not sure how it is generally handled when articles from one website are migrated to another though.
Thank you once more, Abryn, for the review. I have performed some copyediting that should suit your requested changes. Note that I removed the infobox image caption completely because just "Cover art of Serious Sam Double D" is evident in itself and does not necessitate an explicit mention.
Using Engadget in place of Joystiq has not caused any issues in the past, as far as I know. Engadget did have its own (minor) gaming section before and it's not always clear what of the current content was formerly on Joystiq. To avoid original research, just using Engadget should do.
As for Gaming Age, the discussions linked from WP:VG/RS#Other situational are not very conclusive. I don't think using a review is too controversial but, depending on your preferences, we could remove it entirely (wouldn't be much of a loss) or put it before the VG project again.
Regards, IceWelder [✉] 19:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally cut the source for now and broach the topic at the RS talk page. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abryn, all done. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 21:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by IceWelder (talk). Self-nominated at 15:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good to go. I found ALT1 to be most interesting. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Thanks for the review. I minorly amended the three hooks in a way my previous nomination was copyedited in the prep area (which I noticed, though I was not notified of it). Could you check whether the requirements are still met? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 11:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serious_Sam_Double_D&oldid=1205307176"