Talk:Turtle Rock Studios/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review this JAGUAR  19:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "is an American video game development company" - just a suggestion, I would recommend rephrasing this to video game developer as "company" seems redundant?
• "The company expanded from six employees to more than seventy staff members in 2014" - is it 70 staff members as of 2014? This sentence makes it sound like they hired 64 staff in one year. Is it true considering that the article later states during the development of Evolve "the team's size expanded to 75 staff members"?
• " Meanwhile, the wizard combat game was scrapped as the team considered the project over-complicated and "geeky"; the team decided to use" - overuse of "the team"
• Where do the names "Turtle Rock 1.0" and "2.0" come from? I didn't spot them anywhere in the prose
• "and worked on Counter-Strike: Global Offensive during its early phrase of development" - phase
• "a small division based solely on casual games" - link casual game
• "Turtle Rock is working on post-launch content for Evolve" - as of when? Can anything else be added on this? This also isn't sourced

References

• Ref 9 and ref 35 are dead
• Refs 22 and 23 are missing access dates

On hold

This is a very well written article which almost meets the GA criteria. I noticed a couple of minor prose issues and dead refs (which could be archived). Once all of the above are clarified this should be good to go. JAGUAR  12:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Jaguar: Thank you very much for the review! I have fixed most of the issues. The name "Turtle Rock 1.0" and "Turtle Rock 2.0" are mentioned by the company founders in the Game Informer video interview, but since the company is not really named like this I decided not to include them in the prose. Thank you once again. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for addressing them! This should be good to go now. The sub-headers should be fine, it's just that as I reader I wasn't aware of what they meant initially. Well done on another GA JAGUAR  16:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)