Talk:The Guy Game/GA1

GA Review

Passed. λ NegativeMP1 04:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 17:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this one, but I'm currently a little busy and tight on time. Hopefully you're okay with waiting a few days? λ NegativeMP1 17:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! It's a long weekend in Australia so I may be offline over the weekend, so please take your time with this one. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I still plan on reviewing this, but I'm going to need a little bit longer to get around to it. Really sorry for the wait. λ NegativeMP1 19:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's all voluntary. Take your time. Some of the other GANs have been sitting inactive for months. No worries. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General criteria

No criteria for a quickfail at WP:GAFAIL is met by this article. No signs of copyright violations, no cleanup tags or banners present, etc.

Prose review

In the lead, I think at least a sentence or two about the development of the game itself would be nice (beyond the lawsuit).
"with surprise expressed that the game did not receive an 'Adults Only' classification" Surprise expressed by who?
Alt text for the gameplay screenshot, please.
Refs 16 and 31 are duplicates
Spotchecked sources 3, 16/31, 28, 49, and 51. All appear to verify the content they are cited to.

Well that was certainly an... interesting read. Not a whole lot to address, and I went through and fixed some minor stuff myself. I'll give you seven days to respond to the above per usual. λ NegativeMP1 07:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing - I can appreciate it's...perhaps not what you had in mind when you saw the article! I've updated the lead, changed the wording on the rating to be more neutral, added alt text to the screenshot, and removed the duplicate citation. Thanks for your feedback and happy to follow up if you have anything additional. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's fine with you, I'll take one more glance at this article tomorrow (since there's a chance I missed something based on the time of night it is here), and either have more comments or pass the article. I'm sorry for increasing the duration of this thing, but I think this is an ideal scenario. λ NegativeMP1 08:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a pretty light touch compared to other GAN's I've done, so I'm in no rush, and appreciate any additional feedback. Thanks again for reviewing an article with subject matter that is probably not your cup of tea - it's not mine either but it is a fairly egregiously controversial game that merits attention. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks fine, and I never said it was something that wasn't my cup of tea, it was just shocking. Anyways, I'm passing this article, good job.

λ NegativeMP1 04:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also point me in the way of any of your own GANs if you have a current nom. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any current nominations, but I appreciate the offer. λ NegativeMP1 04:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.