Talk:Sneaky Sneaky

Sources

This article uses a variety of unreliable sources that should be removed. I'd start with cross-reference against the WP:VG/RS list, but some of these sites should be quite apparent in their lack of reliability/reputation  czar 00:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: So, to clarify, if a source doesn't appear on that list, it's unreliable by default? Because none of the references I have used are explicitly marked as unreliable. Omni Flames (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but it's very unlikely to be a reliable source... Think of it as whether you would be comfortable citing these sources in an academic paper—many are hobbyists. AppleNApps, COGconnected, Hooked, etc. Also some of these were discussed on the talk page and might not be updated on the list. czar 02:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sneaky Sneaky/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. I'm sorry to see that you have been waiting over three months; I fear that this may be because the article has a few problems which suggest, at first glance, that this is no ready for promotion to GA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Some issues:

• You should avoid contractions and gendered language. Before I removed it, the article read "but when combat is necessary, various weapons are available for him [apparently referring to the player] to use after they're unlocked".
  • By "he", I believe the article was referring to the main character, not the player themselves. Sorry for the confusion. Omni Flames (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I did wonder that, but, as written, it did seem to point to the player; there was some ambiguity. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• "After being sent to prison, the game shows a brief cut scene of him sneaking out of prison" This needs reworking. The plot section as a whole needs work. I get that it's about Sneaky trying to get out of prison, but what's this about the kingdom? Does he meet friends? Discover secrets? Kill the king? Make it out of prison? Recover the rubies?
• "Throughout the levels, the aim is to avoid an encounter with any enemies, and complete the level" Ok, but how does one complete the level?
  •  Done Omni Flames (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Could we perhaps have a link for "turn-based"? This may not be familiar to some readers.
  •  Done Omni Flames (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• "hammer is for breaking rocks and the axe is for cutting down trees." So they're not for battling guards? I'm confused.
  •  Done: clarified Omni Flames (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• "In addition, special attacks can also be used" More needed.
• "with a metascore of 82" and "with a metascore of 63" This information is meaningless on its own. From where, how, and out of what?
• "However, the game was criticized by some for its poor controls which made the game an awkward experience." Weasel words, and you can't really say "some" on the back of one reviewer.
  •  Done Omni Flames (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• The sources aren't absolutely terrible, but they're not great. 148apps, AppleNApps and AppAdvice in particular don't look great; why have you chosen to use them?

Some recommendations:

• There is no explicit ban on citations in lead sections, but any information in the lead should be elsewhere in the article, so they are generally not needed (unless there is controversial information or direct quotes in the lead, which should always be cited).
• Beware player/player character ambiguity.
• Your sentences are sometimes very complex; sometimes, they don't make much sense. Try to keep them simple and punchy!
• "Hooked Gamers was unimpressed by the controls" This strikes me as problematic personification.

I don't think this is where it needs to be. The writing isn't great, expansion is needed in a good few places, and the sources leave a lot to be desired. I'm happy to leave this open to give you a chance to respond, but I do not think that the article is close to GA status. Czar, who has already commented on this article, has experience writing articles on topics like this; his advice will be invaluable for you. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok; it's been over a week, and while there has been some improvement, the article still seems to fall short of GA quality. As such, I am going to close the review at this time. In particular, I think you need to consider expansion and the use of higher quality sources, as well as tidying up the writing a little. I appreciate that this probably isn't the response that you were hoping for; I hope it does not discourage you from nominating articles (including this article, once improved!) at GAC again in the future. If I can be of any help, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)