Talk:Manhunt 2/GA1

GA Review (old)

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 17:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... Ping me if a review isn't posted in a day or two. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• The lead focuses too much on the certification issue, and doesn't adequately touch on gameplay, plot, or more general development.
• I think the gameplay section suffers from comparison to the first game. Readers shouldn't have to read another page to understand yours, so keep the comparisons to a minimum and make sure it's understandable here.
• The gameplay doesn't actually tell me what the point of the whole game is. I get details about executions, stealth, situational murder, etc., but it doesn't actually gel into a cohesive section where information flows logically.
• I'm not sure why the controversy is given as a timeline. It should all be converted into prose. with consideration given to what details are actually important enough to include and elaborate on rather than listing everything. This entire section probably can be cut down.
  • The quotes in the controversy should be summed up and condensed; giving a paragraph to victims of a demonstrably unrelated crime who blame the game seems like undue weight. Likewise, the quotes later on just make reading a chore. If they aren't paraphrased in the sources that might be an indication they aren't views worth quoting verbatim.
  • Was Jack Thompson actually disbarred at the point this is brought up?
• This is partially a personal suggestion, as apparently there is some disagreement in WP:VG on this, but I'd recommend actually using reviewer's names; the publication itself doesn't usually present the review as "their" review, they are written by singular individuals for that publication… e.g. "Gamespot's Greg Kasavian said" rather than "Gamespot said".
• Still to do: source check for accuracy and paraphrasing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's time to fail this, only three edits have been done between the review and this comment. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've notified the main editor/nominator, although they appear to edit in spurts with significant gaps in between. I don't see the harm in letting this idle for one more week; if nothing happens I will fail the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As there has been no further progress, I am failing the GA nomination. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)