Talk:Conker's Bad Fur Day/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I'm seeing some problems with the prose at points; you should enlist someone to help give it a quick copyedit to fix them. Additionally, two things on the Plot section: first off, it should be above the Gameplay, so the readers understand what a "Conker the Squirrel" is. The gameplay does not help to lead players into the Plot, but the Plot leads players into the gameplay so they know all of the terms. Second off, the Plot section is waaay too detailed. I appreciate that it has a story, and since I've played much of it, a fairly deep one compared to most Nintendo 64 games, but I can't imagine that it requires the same amount of paragraphs as Chrono Trigger. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Reduced Plot section to 3 paragraphs. If it still needs more work, please let me know. --Niwi3 (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The length is fine. I'll go through it to make sure that the prose is fine soon. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   From what I can see, there seems to be a problem with referencing. In one paragraph every line could be adequately referenced, whereas in another paragraph, it has only a few, or worst case scenario, none. This is particularly in Plot and Gameplay sections. Also, Game Chronicles and Armchair Empire are not considered reliable sources. Additionally, what makes Game Critics a reliable source? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed Game Chronicles, Armchair Empire and Game Critics references. I'm also worried I may be using IGN refs too much, but it's just so handy, as it is the most comprehensive review I've found for the game. If you think there are too many, I can try to reduce them. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The IGN links are fine; it makes sense that IGN would be used more because it's the biggest video games website. The Gameplay section also needs more sourcing, and the Plot needs full sourcing. I also overlooked that the Reception has a line about its "cult following" that isn't referenced. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to let me know if you find more issues. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hate to keep piling on problems, but GamerNode is not identified as a reliable source currently. I'm sure that there are better sources that mention its cult status (consult this list for ideas of good sources). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I couldn't find any better source that supports its cult status. Here GameTrailers does mention that the game is a cult classic, although in an indirect way. So frankly, I don't know what to do. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it's indirect; The author calls it a "cult classic", so it's perfectly fine. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Replaced. By the way, by "indirect" I was meaning that the source is mainly about the sex scene, not about its cult status. In any case, I suppose you're right: if the author calls it a cult classic, it should be fine. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I would very much prefer that more discussion exist about the remake. While it does have its own article, it's important to give more than one mention (technically two, but the lead's is basically the same mention as the body's). You could include a single paragraph giving a taste for its reception and sales, maybe discuss the development process a bit more (doesn't have to be too much in either case; wouldn't want it to be completely redundant to the main article for the remake). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Added more info. --Niwi3 (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. 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):

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thank you for reviewing the article so quickly. I will try to do my best and adress the issues you listed when I have time. --Niwi3 (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As an FYI, I'm going to be a little busy, so you might just have to wait a few days before I give it another go-over, okay? If you could find someone to give it a go-through to make sure that it's up to snuff, I could pass it sooner. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm patient. Just take your time and you'll be fine. Meanwhile, I will see if I can find someone. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Congratulations to you and to PresN for his great copyedit. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)