Talk:The Sims 4/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zekerocks11 (talk · contribs) 01:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Considering the first two reviews didn't pass, I will be reviewing them and comparing the current article and the comments left on the last review. I will also be referencing the WP:GACR's 6 rules for GCA. I will mention, this is my first time reviewing, and per guidelines, I have no affiliation with this article and I have not read this article until this point.

1. Well Written - After going through the references, I will be re-reading for accuracy, spelling, grammar, and flow.

The Sims 4 is very well written from my perspective. I do have comments to add to this

I know that the section Build Mode was probably a real pain in the ass to write so I will go easy and nice about this. As mentioned in the prior GA, there are run on sentences and overall the flow isn't the best. I do see a lot of improvements from the last, but I think that there could be a little bit more effort put in. The facts are there, and I do not think you should remove this section, but I do think that you should reword it and work some things around a bit.

I honestly don't really have many other complaints. I think most of this article is well written and I didn't see any grammar errors from my perspective, but if there was, I'm sure others will catch it and fix it at some point.

2. Citations - I will first be starting with going over all references while going through my initial readthrough.

Reference 4, 20, 25, 41, 44, 80, 114, 138, 156: TheGamer has been proven to be a situational source
Reference 11, 107, 111, 117, 140, 165: Kotaku is a bit iffy on my end, as with my experience they are sometimes bias in their writing.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources lists TheGamer as a "situational source", particularly for "articles after August 2020", ~~which they all are~~. I do realise TheGamer appears quite frequently in this article, so I'll try my best to replace with better sources whereever possible. Kotaku is listed as a reliable source, but I'll check again if the Kotaku citations have "little news or reporting significance" as stated. Theknine2 (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Removed most of the TheGamer citations, though I've left the Kotaku citations as is. Theknine2 (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lack of references in the opening paragraphs. I will be adding in citation needed to the article where I believe citations are needed, for your convenience. If you would like to challenge this, feel free.

Citations are not needed in the lead section, but I guess someone has pointed that out already! Theknine2 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those, the initial readthrough with citations looks perfectly fine. I am absolutely satisfied with citations in the article, other than the before mentioned section. Citations are from reliable sources, and are accurate and applicable with what they are citing.

3. Broadness in coverage - I will be reading through the headings and sub-headings, checking to see if categories discussed stay on topic.

From what I read, all things have a proper place. I don't see any reason to remove any content, as I found all content to relate to the game in one way or another, with proper sources throughout the whole article to backup any and all information. Good job on this part!

4. Neutrality - I will be reading over again for editorial bias and and fairness in the article.

This article was written from a very neutral standpoint. All things said were facts, with proper sources to back up the author in what they said. The article was given proper respect and fairness; the author did not pick a side to be on, and focused on only writing the facts and information. Once again, good job here!

5. Stability - I will be looking over the edit history and seeing if there is any issues with stability.

I took a look here, and I see no disputes or issues with edit wars or the like. Looks good to me!

6. Illustration - I will be looking over the articles images and providing feedback.

I looked over the images in their respective sections, and the images themselves, and there is no outstanding issue with any of the images. I like the addition of the images showing people and screenshots of the game in the respective sections, it gives a good touch to the article and it looks really good with the inclusion of them. The captions are suitable as well. Pass on this part!

Overall, this is a far improvement from the last two GAN's. I commend your major work you put on this article, and I expect great things from you from future projects, as well as your future support and work on this article. Once you fix the issues found in part 1 and 2, I'm comfortable giving this a pass. I will mention, this is also my first time reviewing, so if you have any recommendations for ME as a reviewer, please feel absolutely free to give me any advice on how to improve.

I will be assigning you 7 days to make the edits to the citations and the Build Mode section. If you finish early (I don't expect this to take long), then please feel free to let me know and I'll take another look over as soon as I can. Happy editing!

Thank you for putting the effort to do this review! I am also new to GAs, and I appreciate every word of your feedback. I will try to work the above within the next 7 days! Theknine2 (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from CR4ZE

Were I taking the review, I would've failed upfront. Both the nominator and the reviewer each acknowledge their limited experience with GANs. I see a litany of issues that have not been mentioned, and I'd be extremely concerned if this article was passed with these oversights.

Gameplay is disorganised and reads less like a descriptor of the core mechanics of the game, and more like a laundry list of new features added both in the base game and through DLC updates. This should be written from the perspective of the non-player, but the entire section assumes the reader has played prior Sims games. There are structural problems too, namely in the way the section briefly "introduces" concepts like Create-a-Sim and worlds, only for them to be expounded later in subsections.

None of the three gameplay images have adequate WP:FURs and File:The Sims 4 - Oasis Springs 1.png is purely decorative.

Done, resolved. Fixed the file description pages and removed the latter image. Theknine2 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting outside the scope a little, but I think it's worth the mention. Both the Development and Reception sections are good enough, but feel under-cooked. The bones of a video game article should be a history of the development and a summary of the critical literature. The writing here thinly examines the actual design of the game. Perhaps the nominator has exhausted the available literature.

There's little available information of the game's development history sadly, presumably since it comprises of the same gameplay concepts and functions as the previous Sims games, with no storyline or characters to speak of. There is some additional leaked information about the "Olympus" project, but were not documented by reliable sources. An extensive "Development" section like the one in the "Ghost of Tsushima" article would be awesome, but is not possible for this particular game. Theknine2 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cumbersome list of all the DLC packs released from the game, with much of the "referencing" hinging on first-party press releases and wiki guides. This was hardly inspiring to read and feels like a WP:NOTLIST problem.

Done, resolved. The pack descriptions were probably more relevant when each pack used to have its own article. Theknine2 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are choppy paragraphs everywhere. A handful of two to three line paragraphs is sometimes acceptable, but this article has well over a dozen.

Done, resolved. Theknine2 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are neutrality problems with two sections labelled "controversies", much of which constitutes discussion of fan backlash to missing/poor features.

Done, resolved. Theknine2 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, there are multiple self-published and first-party references used to support article content (earnings reports are fine). If reliable, third-party sources haven't covered something, it probably shouldn't be mentioned. An Amazon listing is used as a reference? There are multiple flat-out unreliable references (read: blogs, fan sites etc.) that the reviewer has not mentioned, including "God is a Geek", "CinemaBlend", "MacRumors", "PC Gamers Insider", "Net Bet", "The Sims 4 Curse Forge", "Extra Time Media", "9to5toys".

Done, resolved all the above-mentioned citations. Theknine2 (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is mostly serviceable (though not brilliant), however there are occasional syntax errors and awkward wording that make some parts hard to follow.

@CR4ZE: Could you elaborate on the "syntax errors" and "awkward wording" points? Not super sure what those mean, and I'm willing to make changes where necessary. Theknine2 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zekerocks11: If you notice any sections that could be worded better, please do point out too, thank you! Theknine2 (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny enough, I am currently in the middle of another read over right now as well. I will get back to you on that momentarily! Zekerocks11 (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Downloadable content packs section: after the first sentence, the 3 sentences describing what all of those things are don't really flow right to me at the moment.

Done, resolved. Theknine2 (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look over the Post-release section, I see a few spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes there. The flow there kind of feels more like a list than actual sentences. I get that its hard to reword it as the type of content there is odd. If you can, and if allowed, I think this section permits bullet points rather than sentences.

I have edited the Post-release section again, and I'm not sure if a bullet point format would work for this section. For context, in this early Dec 2021 revision, there's an extensive "patch features" table that was removed for various reasons. Theknine2 (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look over Reception. I think it's okay, but it could use a little work with flow. I can't' really give advice here much, just read it over out loud word for word, period for period, and comma for comma.

Done, resolved. Theknine2 (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, when I read the Development part of the article, I think it's written pretty well for where the article is at right now, so if you are confused, try looking that over and try and tell a difference.

Other than that, make sure you give a very, VERY in depth look over for punctuation, and if you need someone to go through and clear punctuation once you do that, let me know and I'll be willing to do that.

Apologies for not catching these things in the initial response. I am willing to help you and answer any questions you have in order to perfect this article. Zekerocks11 (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of this combined gives me the sense that a little more attention to WP:GA?, WP:VG/GL and WP:VG/S was needed here. Certainly, reading some other video game GAs (better yet, FAs) would be helpful.

As is protocol, I'll leave the final verdict in the hands of the reviewer, but I would certainly hope that my concerns are given at least some consideration. I'll note the outcome of the GAN either way, but I do think some community input from the WikiProject would be helpful. Theknine2, I know I'm being tough here, but frankly, you had two failed GANs prior to this. You could've kept the peer review open and have gone through that process first before this one. That was my recommendation, which you absolutely have no reason to follow, but it would've at least given a forum for these issues to be ironed out. Zekerocks11, this is entirely your call. — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will be considering the oversights provided by you and I thank you for finding them out for me myself. Given my limited knowledge, this information helps both me and the nominator. Your opinions will be considered when I do my final look over. I believe a lot of these things could easily be fixed within the next 7 days though, so I will be keeping the the review on hold until that time is up. I obviously need to spend more time reviewing citations and policies while reading. That is completely my bad and a large oversight on my part. I once again appreciate your comments. Zekerocks11 (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zekerocks11: I think I've resolved as much of the above comments as possible, particularly adding even more reliable sources, and rephrasing several sentences and paragraphs. Do comment if there's any areas mentioned above that I've missed, or any additional areas that need resolving, thank you! Theknine2 (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, I looked it over, and I will be passing it. Please ensure that you are continuously keeping this article up to date, and fixing anything that needs fixing. Thanks for your hard work! Zekerocks11 (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too, you have been helpful throughout this entire process! Theknine2 (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]