Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 13:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this one on, although probably not until this upcoming weekend. Canadian Paul 13:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Great work on this one, just a handful of notes:

1. Under "Gameplay", it seems a bit odd to me that it begins by comparing it to other Legend of Zelda games, when the subject of the article hasn't been discussed on a more basic level itself per WP:OBVIOUS. If someone read this article without knowing what a Zelda game was (and without reading the lead), they would be immediately lost. I think that for flow and readability, the second paragraph should come first to introduce the topic, so that what is currently the first paragraph can be better placed in context.
2. I'm not necessarily disputing it, but is WCCF Tech (ref #3) considered a reliable source for video game articles? I can't seem to find anything on it. Same question about ExtremeTech (ref #136). Also, according to WP:VG/RS, Twinfinite (ref #56) is not considered a reliable source and should be replaced.
3. Under "Gameplay", paragraph three, "Shrines mostly replace the series' traditional dungeons, instead consisting of smaller challenges ranging from puzzles to battles against robotic opponents." Something's a bit off with this sentence, I think maybe the use of the word "instead" here is confusing (as someone who has played most of the previous games, I'm not sure how this differs - and people who have never played one of these games will probably be very lost)
4. Same paragraph, "Also scattered across Hyrule are various small puzzles that reveal the hiding places of Koroks; solving them earns Korok Seeds" - The way that this is phrased currently, it sounds like you have to solve the Koroks to get the seeds - might be worth explaining what a Korok is here too.
5. Under "Development", second paragraph "At the 2017 Game Developers Conference, Fujibayashi..." You only use his surname here, but you haven't introduced who Fujibayashi is yet at this point.
6. References #43 and #143 are dead and should therefore link directly to the archived versions.
7. Under "Reception", paragraph 1 "Major publications including..." "Major" seems a bit POVish to me. Is there a reason that word needs to be there? Readers can click the Wikilinks and assess the importance of these publications themselves. Same concern with the word "considerable" (used twice) in the second paragraph of "Accolades"
8. Under "Sales", "While Breath of the Wild was only the second bestselling retail game in the UK in its week of release, selling less than Horizon," - "Horizon" should be either explained or Wikilinked here for flow and context.

There a few more little things, some I just edited myself, others I left alone, but in terms of the GA criteria, I believe that this is it. I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page often, so I should notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 16:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Canadian Paul: Thank you for taking on this review and for your comments! I will work on fixing these issues and let you know when I am done! --haha169 (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Canadian Paul: I just wanted to let you know that I've taken care of your concerns! A few editors must have come in and fixed some of the smaller things, because they were already fixed by the time I got to them. Essentially, I revamped the entire Gameplay section and fixed the sourcing errors (WCCF tech was just quoting the Eurogamer article's interview of Aonuma so I replaced it, ExtremeTech's source was an overcite so I removed it, and I just removed Twinfinite and the bit of info that it cited). Lastly, refs 43 and 143 (at the time you left the review, were GameInformer and MCV respectively, let me know if these weren't the ones you were referring to as citations have moved around) are indeed dead, but they have archived links. --haha169 (talk)

Great, it looks pretty good on a skim, but I'll take the proper look that the article is due when I have a bit more time (probably tomorrow). One additional concern I have at the moment, however, is in regards to criteria #5, stability. It didn't seem to be an issue when I first looked at the article, but I see a lot of editing going on here... not edit wars per say, but seems to be a lot of heavy editing from different users (I'm not concerned about your editing, of course, as a response to the review). Any thoughts? Canadian Paul 13:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Canadian Paul:, regarding #5, while this article is certainly a bit more busy than any other GA nomination I've put through, I think it still satisfies the stability requirement. According to WP:GA?, "good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing)...do not apply to the "stable" criterion". Generally, with the exception of some occasional vandalism, the majority of the edits in the past month appear to be simple copy edits or improvements, and the larger ones haven't really made significant changes to the general structure of the article. --haha169 (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, real life and all that. Upon closer inspection of the changes, I agree with your statement above. There seem to be some minor disagreements, but the article as whole seems stable and, other than the changes you made in response to the review, I don't see anything overly-substantial. I still think that there are a few tweaks that could be made (and I'm sure the FA reviews, which I presume is where this is heading, will find many more), but I no longer see anything here that fails to satisfy the GA criteria (I think that the Gameplay section is much improved and I'm really glad to see you managed to take what I was fumbling trying to say in words to address the issues), so I'm going to go ahead and pass the article. Congratulations and thank you for all your hard work! Canadian Paul 18:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Canadian Paul:, Thank you for taking the time to review this article! I really, truly appreciate it! :) --haha169 (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)