Talk:CD Projekt/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ferret (talk · contribs) 18:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

   See detailed comments below.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   There are some areas of the history section that are not clearly sourced.

   C. No original research:

   This is almost a "Y" but I could not find anything in sources that attributes 2007-08 financial crisis as part of almost entering bankruptcy. Please let me know if I missed it.

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass! All issues addressed by nom. -- ferret (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to let me know if you feel any of this is overly nitpicky, as this is my first review. Regarding clear and concise prose for 1.A, I had a lot of issues with the lead, and several comments and thoughts on the history section.

Regarding the lead, the following sentences are awkward:

1. a CD Projekt project (the PC version of Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance) was cancelled and company decided to use its code for their own video game.
   • I think using parenthesis here could be eliminated, i.e. "CD Projekt was working on the PC version of..."
2. After the release of The Witcher, CD Projekt worked on The Witcher: White Wolf; this descended into development hell, bringing the company to the brink of bankruptcy.
   • Should note this was a console port, i.e. "worked on a console port called". Development hell seems a bit jargony for the lead, suggest replacing with something like "but development issues and increasing costs almost led to.."
3. CD Projekt is also a distributor. GOG.com, established to help players find old games, expanded to cover new AAA and independent games.
   • This feels like a collection of short sentence/fragments and could be reworked to be cleared. It's also a good place to mention GOG's mission of "No DRM"

Regarding the history section:

1. Localization contains "With the game cancelled and its code owned by CD Projekt, the company planned to use the code to develop their first original game." I feel this statement may be a bit misplaced and should be moved down into the first paragraph of Game Development.
2. "Dark Alliance's codes" should be just "code"
3. Game developement notes that a mobile game studio had the rights to Wiedzmin, but doesn't name it. Source has the name, so I would add it for completeness
4. "The game brought Wiedźmin to an international audience, and the company came up with an English name" .. Suggest making this future tense, such as "The game would bring" "and so the company". The game is not released yet at this point in the history. This sentence may also work better if moved later in the paragraph, unless a source says they picked the name early on. The currently in use source for this first half of the paragraph does not mention the naming.
5. This is partly 1.A and 2.B: The paragraph in Game Development, beginning with "Sales were satisfactory" has a lot of confusing prose and potentially unsourced details. There is no mention of the "Enhanced Edition" of the first game, which came before development of sequels. I would make sure the Witcher 3 engine (Intended for better console support after Witcher 2) is mentioned after Witcher 2, as the ordering seems confusing. I would add sources to the first half of this paragraph to the EuroGamer interview, which covers the details. Currently a PC Gamer article is used as a source, but doesn't contain the details and links to EuroGamer anyways.
6. As noted in 2.C comment, I checked several of the longer sources but could not find a claim that the 2007-2008 financial crisis was a factor in facing bankruptcy. Let me know if I missed it.
7. The statement "The engine was unfinished, which prevented experimentation and prototyping." seems unnecessary, since the next sentence basically covers the finishing of the engine.
8. "After a fake closure to "generate some buzz", the service resumed." should mention when this occurred (2010?) and maybe expand on the effect of the closure.
9. "for the service in an effort" read awkward to me, would remove "for the service" or reword.
10. "When the team develops a game, they focus on.." feels like it could read better with "they decided to focus on.." I believe "assessed" should be "assess" here as well.

I think this can be cleared up pretty quickly. -- ferret (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ferret: Thank you for the review! I think I have addressed the issues you have raised above. I can't find the name of the mobile game company, and I don't think the Enhance Edition of Witcher 2 is important enough to be included here. I have removed the part about "generate some buzz" because it doesn't really have much effect. Thank you once again. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer: I made a tiny handful of additional grammar tweaks, and am closing this as passed. :) -- ferret (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! AdrianGamer (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)