Wikipedia

Talk:The Darkness II/GA1

< Talk:The Darkness II
Latest comment: 4 years ago by OceanHok in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AntiGravityMaster (talk · contribs) 02:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply


Staring a review of The Darkness II, will update with details shortly. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Improvements by section

edit

Lead

edit
  • There's a single citation in the lead for "Demon Arms". This doesn't seem to be anything particularly likely to be challenged, it's verified later in the body by other sources, and the rest of the lead is absent of cites. I'd recommend removing it due to redundancy. See WP:LEAD for more details. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Done
  Done

Gameplay

edit
  • Opening paragraph calls the Demon Arms "demon tentacles", then "demon tendrils". Stay consistent with the nomenclature. If what the Demon Arms are isn't obvious, I'd suggest introducing them as "...Additionally, he is armed with a pair of Demon Arms, which resemble tentacles and can be used to slash enemies or pick up various items within the environment..." or something similar. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Done
  • These three sentences "When exposed to light, Jackie's health regeneration and Darkness abilities are disabled and the Darkling will vanish, leaving Jackie with firearms as his only defense. Jackie's vision will blur and he will experience a high-pitched ringing. The player must avoid directly exposing Jackie to light sources or disable them by shooting out lights or destroying power generators." should be rephrased/merged to be less fragmented. The second sentence is particularly jarring. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Done - I have rearranged the sentences a bit.
  Done
  • Some more links would be good, for things such as "samurai sword", "blunderbuss", and "...various firearms, such as submachine guns, shotguns, and assault rifles..."
  Done
  Done - I put a quotation mark for the first instance of mention. I don't think we need a quotation mark every time we mention this mode, but I have remove the WP:ITALIC.

Plot

edit
  • This section is completely citation-free. While there may be some redundancy with previously listed citations, it's a bit jarring to go from a section with frequent citations into a section with absolutely none. The lead is an exception to this and generally does not need citations if the information therein is sourced later in the article, but the plot section should have some. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
We rarely have sources for this section per WP:VG/PLOT

Development

edit
  Done

Reception

edit
  Done - There isn't much information about the game's sales, so I have merged it to the reception section.

GA Review

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Various small spelling and structure errors. Easily fixable.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
    Plot section uncited.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    These issues aren't too major, but they're holding back the article from meeting the criteria. You can use the {{done}} tag to indicate when a concern has been met. Feel free to shoot me a message when you believe the article is ready for reconsideration. Good luck!
@AntiGravityMaster: - Thanks for the review! I think I have fixed most of the issues. OceanHok (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

GA Review (revised)

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Darkness_II/GA1&oldid=952805767"