Talk:The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Famous Hobo (talk · contribs) 17:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one up. Famous Hobo (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for a bit of a delay, life's been a bit busy lately. Should have some free time tomorrow. Famous Hobo (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: Try getting to the review within the month. I'm moving in November. Cognissonance (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo and Cognissonance: I'd be happy to take this one over if you don't have the time. Played the game to death and article looks like a great read. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would definitely expedite the process. Cognissonance (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not reviewing, but I thought I'd post a few comments/questions:

Development's last paragraph talks about voices, but it doesn't clarify the language. Presumably the reenactment of the battle in Poland would be helpful for Polish voices, but did they record knights in helmet speaking in English? Or any of the other 15 or so game languages?
Which languages was the game localized in? I don't see a list
I think the DRM-free sentence could be expanded into a paragraph, I remember reading several articles about how CPR approach to TW3 was seen as innovative, compared to unfriendly DRM-locks and such by some other companies. And it was not only because people complained about DRM, but also because the developers/company think DRM are consumer-unfriendly, and removing DRM would increase sales.
I think there is some more or less valid criticism that should merit at least a sentence, ex. one of the refs [1] mentions discussion of sexism and minorities that were significant, and again I can see enough refs that this type of stuff should deserve at last a sentence.
comparing pl article to this, I note it discusses 1) the intro/trailer by Tomasz Bagiński, our article does not mention him at all. 2) It also mentions that the writer Sapkowski helped a bit as a consultant for some names and map, but didn't have any other influence (ref). 3) it also mentions that the collector's edition, not even mentioned in our article, came with a figurine, medallion and an artbook. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that nobody is bothering to even reply to my comments does not bode well for this GA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that the reviewer is not reviewing does not bode well for this GA. Cognissonance (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe they are waiting for someone to address the issues I raised. If the person(s) who submitted this GA don't bother replying to me, the reviewer may assume they won't bother to reply to their review, so why waste time? I thought about taking over this review, but again, why bother? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is not new behaviour. I take your comments as suggestions, and disagree that they would improve the article. Cognissonance (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Would you care to discuss them in more detail rather then this generic dismissal? I spent substantial amount of time reading this, identifying problems and offering my suggestions as to what they are, almost as much as I would do if it was regular GA. Your dismissive stance is not making a good impression on me or anyone else who may want to review your work. Why should anyone offer review if you don't seem to be interested in even engaging in a discussion about proposed suggestions? If you don't want to implement them, fine, but I do not think this article is ready for a GA until they have been at the very least discussed properly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I have implmented some changes based on your suggestions above. Languages generally are WP:GAMECRUFT, and so is the part about the trailer and voices, which are sort of trivial details, so trivial that I can't really find sufficient source to substantiate them. The DRM thing you mentioned above is more about CD Projekt's philosophy rather than this specific game. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As info, there's been some pretty extensive copy editing and changes the last couple of days, see this diff set. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: Will you be doing the review or can CR4ZE take over? Cognissonance (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— pinging @Famous Hobo: again. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]