Talk:Star Wars: The Force Unleashed/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   I'm quite impressed with the prose, I think it flows quite well, and I didn't pick up any obvious problems. I quite like how you've managed to get some detailed information on the development of the characters as well.

   B. MoS compliance:

   There's a few MoS problems. Firstly, structure. Gameplay should be the first section, followed by the Plot section, then the Development section and ending with the Reception section. Each section is reasonably well contained, so re-organising should be quick, easy and not affect the flow of the prose. Secondly, unlink "2008" in the introduction.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Referencing is really commendable, well done.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   I have one problem here, and that's with the gameplay section. I've not played this game, and I don't understand how the gameplay actually works from the existing prose. I think some expansion is needed here, although it tells you what the developers were after, it doesn't tell you quite how it is in the end product. For one, its helpful to restate the genre. Extra information, such as how the player progresses through the levels and engages in combat, what sort of puzzles, if any, present themselves during the game, if an inventory system is implemented and how it is used if it is, how linear the levels are, etc, could be useful. Concisely though, by how the player engages in combat, I don't mean list all the available weapons and force powers. Take a look over some FA and GA articles to see what I mean if I haven't made it particularly clear, this stuff should be easily verifiable in the reviews. You don't need much, a few of sentences should do it. You've mentioned fighting game in the infobox, some elaboration on that would be good - does Starkiller enter a Mortal Kombat-esque minigame of some sort? If not, its probably prudent to remove that genre from the infobox.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems here

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   You'll probably need to bolster these up for an FA, but they're passable at the moment.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The biggest issue here is there's no image of the actual game in full play. A standard image of the player character, with the game world about him (in combat would be a nice extra, but not necessary), should be essential. Stick one in the gameplay section.

• Thanks, Sabre -- If no one else beats me to it, I'll get that image this evening or tomorrow morning weekend. --EEMIV (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Done. --EEMIV (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm placing the nomination on hold for the moment, pending resolution of the above issues. Give me a beep when done, I'll check it over again. -- Sabre (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Pass. Congratulations. I'd strongly recommend a peer review though, if you are planning to push for FA. -- Sabre (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)