Wikipedia:Peer review/The Sims 4/archive1

The Sims 4

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working really hard to bring this article to GA status. I have been through the GA review process, but failed twice, and I have been recently made aware that I should solicit more feedback via a peer review process. I have further edited this article since its last GA review (old revision linked here), basically rewriting the entire article in the process.

I am still fairly new to editing articles to GA, and there aren't many other games like The Sims 4 that can refer to. All comments and feedback would be helpful.

Thanks! Theknine2 (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

No concerns for the inline citations.
Not sure what the "Stuff packs and kits" is. I think this section might need a paragraph of prose or to be removed.
Note a needs a citation.
I suggest using IABot to archive the references. Here's the link to run the script on the page.
The "Reception" section suffers from too much "X said Y". See WP:RECEPTION on tips to diversify the writing.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: In the "Downloadable content packs" section, there's a part of the paragraoh that states "Stuff packs are minor DLC packs which only include some furniture, clothing, and few gameplay elements. Kits are the smallest DLC packs, with each kit exclusively focusing on either furniture or clothing items.". Is this sufficient prose for clarification, or do I need to edit/format it in a different way?
IABot's run page hasn't been working for about a week now, as of now still not resolved unfortunately. (Bot bug report here [1])

I'll make the changes for the other points, thank you so much! Theknine2 (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

I wouldn't recommend having a peer review and GA nomination open simultaneously. Given that you've already received a response here, I would withdraw the GAN for now and renominate once you work through the feedback and close this off. — CR4ZE (T • C) 16:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, apologies, I would prefer to close off this peer review then, since i'ts already been in the GAN list for a while. Thanks. Theknine2 (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]