Talk:The Gardens Between

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vestigium Leonis (talk · contribs) 21:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll look at the article within the next few days. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

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): 1b. Comment: I would suggest to split the lead section into 3 paragraphs if possible. The two existing ones are a bit bulky. I also recommend to create an accolades section and separate it from critical reception. Explained and partly adjusted by nominator.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources): 2b. Comment: There is only one unreliable source that should be replaced immediately: Gaming on Linux has been deemed as an unreliable source per WP:VG/S. Most of the others are reliable, though some are unlisted (Gaming Boulevard, WellPlayed, Allgamers / HyperXGaming, Whattoplay, Indie Pearls, Bandcamp, SXSW). Were these sources checked for reliability? I would also support the awards (Apple, Webby) with secondary sources covering the show if possible. I would tend to exclude the Australian Game Awards, unless you can offer more input on notability (per WP:VG/AWARDS). Explained and corrected by nominator.

1. c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/fail: Comment: Great job! There are only a few minor issues that need to be addressed in order to "pass" the article. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Necessary adjustments were made by the nominator. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Vestigium Leonis: I've replaced GamingOnLinux and removed the Australian Game Awards nomination. I added 3rd party refs for the Apple Design Award and Webby award. The unlisted sites are being used for interviews, e.g. I'm citing the developers' words, not the article writer's opinions or facts they mention, and The Voxel Agents linked out to them when it happened on Facebook/Twitter so they're real interviews. --PresN 17:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Great, and the sources for interviews are fine as well. Just for completion, I would like to hear your opinion on 1b. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vestigium Leonis: Ah, sorry: I don't want to split out an accolades section because it would only be one paragraph, so it makes more sense to leave it as a part of overall reception. I'd be fine with changing the lead to 3 paragraphs instead of 2, but I can't find a good way to split it that doesn't chop the gameplay summary in half or leave a tiny paragraph- it's actually only 7 sentences in the first and 6 in the second paragraph, so it's hard to rearrange. --PresN 19:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Fixed it a bit the other way- cut out a sentence from each paragraph. --PresN 19:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that sounds reasonable. Everything is adjusted and fixed, so I will let the article pass! Vestigium Leonis (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)