Talk:The Sims 3/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Niwi3 (talk • contribs • count) 11:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Issues found
[edit]- The gameplay section is way too detailed and completely lacks reliable sources. I suggest creating a separate article called "Gameplay of The Sims 3" for a more in-depth description of the gameplay (use The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and World of Warcraft as examples), and leave the section to explain the basics. Also, you should mention the game genre, which is something crucial in a gameplay section. How about starting like this: The Sims 3 is a single-player life simulation game in which the player controls individuals, called Sims, in a similar manner to real life.
- The article is badly organized. If this is supposed to be the PC version of the game, why does the infobox include other platforms? Why is there a "Traits" subsection (for iOS) in the development section? Why is there a separate article for the console versions that has almost no notability? Why is there info about the first expansion and the DS version in the release subsection, but nothing about the rest? The entire article really needs to be reorganized and recast.
- The expansion packs, stuff packs, and DLC can be moved to a separate list article called "List of The Sims 3 add-ons", kinda like List of StarCraft media or List of Final Fantasy media.
- The article doesn't have much on reception. I'm sure that a game like The Sims 3 can have 3 or 4 paragraph of text in that section.
- All references should make use of Template:Cite web and should list the publish date, publisher, author (if any), title, URL and access date.
In conclusion, there are enough significant issues in the article in that merely placing on hold is not going to do any good, so I am going to fail this GA nomination soon. My suggestions are the following: Keep things simple, fix the article scope and coverage, and fix the basic stuff before expanding it. After that, you may also wish to request a peer review before you re-nominate so that everything is good to go.
This is the first time I review something here at wikipedia. If you have any questions on these points, or if you think I'm being unreasonable, please ask. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)