Talk:Dungeon Keeper/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 13:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

One of my favourite games of all time, so I'll take this one on... should have the review completed within a day or two. Canadian Paul 13:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

1. I'm not sure that this even falls under GA criteria, but I thought I'd bring this up since it does impact the flow a little bit... is there any reason that the "Gameplay" section has random technical details glued to the end of it? I sort of get the multiplayer information, since that is about how one plays the game, but the technical information seems out of place here. Could it be better placed (for flow) as a subheading of either game play or development?
2. In fact, in terms of comprehensiveness, I feel like the article is missing a little bit of discussion on some of those technical aspects, such as graphics, the platforms it was released on, the music... I feel that there's a whole section missing here that could be titled "technical details and release" (which could steal some elements that are already present in development) or something like that, as some of these details are implied in the "development" section, but never stated explicitly (for example, it is mentioned that the game was ported to Windows 95, but there's no explicit mention of the DOS version). Overall, there's a bit of a problem with the prose jumping from place to place at the time, which makes it difficult to read/understand for the uninitiated and finding a home for these pieces may help that. Some of this is mentioned in the lead, but per WP:LEAD, there should be no information in the lead that is not present in the main body of the article.
3. While we're talking about the lead, it is mentioned that "The Avatar from the Ultima series appears as the final hero", but the body only notes that it's an Avatar and neither claims (nor cites) that it is the Avatar from Ultima. Also mentioned in the lead, but not the body "Dungeon Keeper was followed by a sequel, Dungeon Keeper 2, in 1999."
4. Under "Development", third paragraph, "Barnes considered it a 'great game decision'", direct quotations must have a direct citation immediately thereafter, even if it is the same one from the end of the paragraph.

I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page often, so I should notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 16:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Canadian Paul: How's the article now? I've added mentions of the DOS version and music, but can't find much about the graphics, other than Healey doing them, and a lot of them. There's a mention of a PSX version, but I'm not sure if it is a serious one. I've changed the article to say the Avatar resembles Ultima VIII's Avatar, as I have no secondary source that says it actually is the same character. I've also added another review and changed some sources (about Dungeon Keeper Gold and the Deeper Dungeons) to better ones. In what way is the prose disorganised? Adam9007 (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I think your edits have taken care of most of my concerns. In terms of the disorganization of the prose, it was easier to fix than to explain, so I've gone ahead and done it. I think if you were working towards an FA, this would require some more development (for example, I can see some people thinking the gameplay section is too detailed, even though I think it is fine), but since I don't see anything here that is in violation of the GA criteria, I'm going to go ahead and pass it as such. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 08:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)