Talk:Still Wakes the Deep

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Still Wakes the Deep/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: OceanHok (talk · contribs) 10:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 14:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Will review this. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

• There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 30.6% in similarity.
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable.
• No previous GA reviews.

General comments

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • "lesser difficulty" → "lower difficulty"
  • "with fog, mist, and darkness" → "in fog, mist, and darkness"
  • "player will" → "players would"
  • "To save cost" → "To save money"
  • "progress in the game" → "progressed in the game"
  • and shortly after that "revisit certain locations" → "revisited certain locations"
  • "best game and" → "best game and an"
  • "criticized its overly linear" → "critiqued its overly linear"
  • I've added/removed commas to the article. See here.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • Optional: Add alt text to images in the article.
  • The article complies with the MOS:LEDE, MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, and MOS:WAF gudelines. There are no embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping MOS:EMBED. Overall, the lede's length is okay, and it summarises the article, the article has appropriate sections, and there are no biased words in the article.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article.
  • No referencing issues.
  • All references are reliable. Good job on archiving them.
  • Spotchecked Ref 1, 4, 10, 11, 17, 21, 24, 30, 31, 33, 35–most verify the cited content. AGF on other citations. See comments below.
    • Bruno Julien, Louis Larsson-De Wet, and Laura Dodds are mentioned in the game's credits.
    • Ref 4 says: "It's basic but it's all the game needs - there's no UI or HUD on the screen", while the article says that the game has a minimalistic HUD
    • Ref 24 does not back up "It was released on June 18, 2024, for Windows PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series X and Series S. The Chinese Room and publisher Secret Mode partnered with Microsoft to promote the game, which was released for Xbox Game Pass subscribers at launch" from the article.
  • Copyvio already checked.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • The article addresses the main aspects, and it stays focused on the topic. Good job on that development section!
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, the article has been stable.
• Checking images.
  • Images are properly licensed and present in relevant sections of the article.

Final comments

@OceanHok: Overall, a very good article. There are several issues that have to get addressed, so I'll put the review on hold for a week. Once they get addressed, I'll promote the article. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Vacant0: - Thanks for the review! I have addressed most of the issues you have mentioned. I will add alt text later. OceanHok (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@OceanHok: Hello, I've added the missing references regarding the release date and platforms. Alt text is not needed for GA reviews, that is why I listed it as optional, in case if you want to improve the article even further. There are no issues now, so I'll be promoting the article. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.