Talk:Saints Row IV/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 21:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@David Fuchs, courtesy ping czar ⨹ 12:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• General:
  • I think the article presumes a bit too much familiarity with the game. For instance, the lead says The player is free to explore the city while completing main and side missions at their leisure., but there’s never been any mention of the city at this point.
  • Likewise, I think care should be taken to look at each instance of comparisons with previous games and whether it should be used. Readers shouldn’t be expected to have foreknowledge of the other games, and referring to something shorthandedly because it was in another game doesn’t help aid their understanding. If all the Saints Row games are open world shooters, telling me that it’s like this is less useful than fluff.
  • Article is on the shorter side, but I don’t see issues with comprehensiveness for the GA criteria.
  • While I think there’s plenty there to satisfy GA requirements, the structure of the reception section seems off to me, in that it privileges a select few reviewers heavily rather than deep-diving into aspects of the game.
• Prose:
  • Some reviewers noted its improved treatment of women. — without any context in the lead and knowledge of the games, this seems like a really weird sentence. “improved treatment of female characters” or something else would probably be more accurate.
  • The dubstep gun, which Polygon described as "iconic", inspired a functioning replica. — Wouldn’t “functioning replica” imply that this worked as a gun that bombed people with electronic music? (Also, at least where it’s placed this seems like irrelevant trivia, especially since the publishers produced a version that shipped with the game.)
  • Think swapping the first and second sentences of the gameplay section would be a good idea. It’s odd to launch into a logline of the plot without introducing anything about the gameplay.
    • On the same note, is there any reason there’s not a standalone plot section?
  • The studio announced Saints Row 4 two months later, which was produced by Koch Media brand Deep Silver. “Produced” is nebulous and never clarified. Just using “published” would probably be better here, since otherwise it sounds like Deep Silver created the game.
  • I’d explain the game’s origin’s as an expansion first, instead of doubling back to it after the first sentence of the second paragraph.
• Images:
  • Only one image, and File:SaintsRowIV.jpg is appropriately labeled and tagged per NFCC.
• References:
  • Refs look good, properly formatted, and archived (yay!)
  • Spot-checked statements sourced to current refs 2, 4, 13, 24, and 26, didn’t see any issues.

Overall, it’s a solid article, I’d just like to see some of the above points addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@David Fuchs, appreciate the review. I think I've covered the above, if you'd like to take a look. As for the few references to SR3, I think the usage is on par with the amount to which the game references/uses parts of its predecessor, and how very often the sources made these comparisons. So every mention of SR3 is purposeful, including that the setting was nearly identical, despite not actually needing to go into detail about what was identical about it. Similarly, the sources did not cover the plot in any depth, which I would contend echoes the game's lack of significant plot. I also think a primary-sourced "characters doing things" plot is best kept for Wikia, as it would not be interesting (as the sources agreed in practice) or of encyclopedic use. I usually almagamate the reviews, but I felt it was preferable to present the reviews by reviewer this time as their points were more nuanced than general impressions of graphics, music, etc. czar ⨹ 11:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Since you've addressed the major issues I had I will pass as GA. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)