Talk:Infamous (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Very interesting read. If I ever get a PS3, I'll have to pick up this game.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is my main issue. I did some copy edits for examples, but it still needs some massaging. Overall, look for redundancies and lengthy sentences. In the reception section, I'd cut back on the quotes, some don't seem to add much. Also, there are some style issues which would help.

• There are several instances of one or two sentences as a standalone paragraph. The only places I think are fine are the beginning and ending of the "Story" section. I'd try to balance the others more by either beefing up the short paragraphs or combine them to another related paragraph.
• The film and related products section are very short. I'd combine them into a single section titled "Film and related products".
• Are ten reviews and 2 aggregate scores necessary? I'd trim duplicate review scores. Perfect scores are fine, but how many 9/10 scores are really needed?
• Ref 5 from Game Informer should use {{cite journal}} instead of {{cite news}}
• Ref 6 from XPlay should have the title in normal case rather than all caps.
• Ref 26 needs some extra info for the citation.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Most of the sources look reliable, but there are a few that I'm not familiar with. What makes the following reliable?

• MVC UK
• Play.tm
• Joystiq authors Kevin Kelly, Griffin McElroy, and Andrew Yoon.
• Ars Technica

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The looks to be everything and more I'd expect from such an article.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article looks to portray the info from a neutral point of view.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Edits have not been too erratic and there doesn't seem to be an edit war occurring.

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Some FURs are a bit sparse, particularly the descriptions and purposes. Some beefing up wouldn't hurt. Also, the cover caption could use some more info, but what's there is fine.

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm putting the GAN on hold for now. I'll check back in to see if the above issues get addressed.

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

I'll get to the other aspects later but I wanted to address at least the sourcing issue:

• MCV is a UK weekly video game business weekly, targetted to the makers and not consumers. It's also a sister publication of Develop for game developers.
• The first two Joystiq people are being used as sources for interviews with Sucker Punch staff , so it's less about their fact checking than the interview parts. The articles from Andrew Yoon are more informational - but I would argue that few of the points stated are contentious as to require rigorous sources (eg, the date of the soundtrack's release, for example); Yoon is the East Coast editor for the blog and thus on the editoral staff for Joystiq
• Ars Technica is a sister publication to Wired, and has similar editorial standards.
• Play.tm is a more niche outfit, but the specific article being used is, again, an interview with Sucker Punch, and where there's overlap in questions, the responses there agree with what's stated elsewhere, so it should be ok. More importantly, the interviewer, Luke, is the lead content editor, and owns the parent company whos video game info has been used in other publications. Yes, not necessarily obvious but seems perfectly fine here. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• And just to follow on, everything but a copyedit (as first the first bullet point under Criteria 1) has been done. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• And now I've tried to give it a copy edit, and tried to remove extraneous quotes in the reception section. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll give the article another read today then. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

I believe the content has improved to meet GA standards and have passed the article. It would have a decent chance at FAC, but a few copy edits from some experienced wordsmiths would probably give it that edge it would need to pass. Also, some of the FAC reviewers may or may not agree with the reliability of a few sources. Overall, good job Masem. Keep up the good work.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC))