Talk:Star Trek (2013 video game)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 16:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Review forthcoming.~~ Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so overall this is a very solid start to the article. Here's some comments on the various criteria:

Prose:
- There's a lot of very dense run-on sentences throughout the article that make parsing meaning difficult. For instance, the very first sentence in the lead packs together a bunch of comma splices. (In general there’s on overuse of commas.)
  - I've done some copyediting to try to rectify this. Miyagawa (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will take a look at the article this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Kirk and Spock enter the locked down sections of the base to recover the infected survivors, but are unable to stop the Gorn from stealing the Helios device and kidnapping Surok.}} This is the first I’m hearing of “infected survivors”. The entire plot section doesn’t explain what this infection actually is.
  - Added. Miyagawa (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The promotion section reads rather transparently as “this is the section that got started first in the article”; it repeats wikilinks, and retreads a some info that should just go in the development section.
  - Yep, it was. I've moved a large chunk of it into the development section. Miyagawa (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- On the same note, launch issues feel like they should be put in before reception. And why does JJ Abrams get a whole paragraph (and that paragraph has content that doesn’t relate to Abrams?)
  - I've moved the launch issues to the production section, and removed the subsection title for the JJ Abrams section. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References:
- and sales were poor with the game described as a "flop". — Seems like this would better be not quoted in the lead, since you're attributing it to a single source.
  - I've removed it from the lead. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 5, 12, 24, and 66. No issues found.
Images:
Non-free image has appropriate, if boilerplate, rationale; free images properly tagged.

Basically my main holdup at this point is the prose; it doesn't need to be brilliant, but it does need to be clear. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above issues appear addressed, and I've done another round of edits to the prose, so I think this meets GA criteria at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]