Talk:Frog Fractions/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WesleyDodds (talk · contribs) 07:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take care of reviewing this one. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

"Crawford originally wrote the game..." would make more sense as "Crawford originally created the game...". Try rephrasing "Later on, he felt that with the indie game genre taking off, the game was taken more seriously among gamers" so you don't have so many variations of the word "game", an issue that also occurs in "While developing the game, Crawford said that he came up with a lot of other video game ideas, but he could implement them immediately into Frog Fractions rather than in a separate game, due to the game's unpredictable nature". For logic reasons, I'd move the first sentence of the second paragraph in the Development section to the start of that section, ie. start with point of origin, development of that idea, and then move on to release.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

It's best to attribute the quotes in the reception section to the publications you pulling them from right in the prose. Sources on the whole check out, thought I feel Giant Bomb is pushing it (giving it a pass since it's clearly labeled as a staff article, and not one of their wiki submissions). You don't necessarily need to use the same cite three times in a row in the Gameplay section; once will suffice. The cite attributed to PC Gamer is actually published by PC World. You should clarify in the prose that it's PC World specifically that is complimenting the game for "drawing connections between each scene to add a feeling of consistency, despite the often strange transitions that take place..." The PC World cite specifies that Crawford was "talking to the art team about t-shirt ideas", while the article implies that he had already sold them.

3. Broad in its coverage:

Most major points covered. You should include the bit from the PC Word article where Crawford explains he didn't actually intend it as an educational game satire, but wished he had.

4. Neutral:

No issues

5. Stable:

No issues

6. Images:

No issues, as far as I can tell

Not much left to do, overall. Address these small points and I can pass the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay all done.

• The excessive citations were meant for DYK, which requires that all information in the hook be cited.
• For the "T-shirt" sentence, I simply another citation (published after the old one) that indicated they had started selling T-shirts.

Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I see the Penny Arcade interview has a few more details worth adding, but the only one I would consider absolutely essential at the moment to fulfill the broadness criteria is the bit on release of the game. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay more done. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I adjusted the Penny Arcade cite to indicate that it's from the site's reporting arm, so people don't think it's the comic. The screenshot checks out too, to the best of my information. Also performed a slight rephrasing of a sentence so it more accurately reflects the PC World article cited. Passing. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)