Talk:Saw (video game)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wikiproject videogames assessment

I've left the rating as-is because the reception section isn't complete, and couldn't be since the game is unreleased. The Plot section will almost certainly need work as well. Apart from that the article is looking very strong, excellent work. References 15 and 20 are attributed to Wikipedia, WP itself is not a reliable source, they'll need replacing ideally before B-class can be achieved and definitely before GA status is awarded. Someoneanother 17:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Plot and reviews?

Seeing as how the game is freshly released, can anyone find some good reviews for the article's reception section? Also, I haven't picked up the game yet so I was wondering if someone who has could redo the plot section and fix up the characters section as well. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I did it. Plot could still use some trimming and revising though. Any help is appreciated. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers

This whole article could use a big fucking "SPOILER ALERT". The game spoilers are just thrown in with no warning at all. I can understand avoiding the plot synopsis on my own, but when the list of characters also spoils all the traps and shit it's just ridiculous.

I agree that the characters section at this point is too detailed and does not serve the proper purpose of a standard characters section. In fact, the plot section at the moment does not spoil the game or it's traps at all. Once I pick up the game later today, I will redo the characters section so it does not spoil anything. My apologies on behalf of whoever added the traps for every character, GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, check out the Dead Rising#Characters section for a better description of what these sections should contain.GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

B-Class Wikiproject videogames assessment

Well done. Can't find much wrong with the article other than the fact that now it just doesn't have enough images on it. Well done overall though gang. --Teancum (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Special features?

Is there a way to properly include the information regarding the special features in the game? (special features meaning the Saw VI trailer, the trap concept art, the environment concept art, the character concept art, etc). It seems very noteworthy but I'm not sure how to incorporate it. Any ideas? Also, what would be a good way to reference the case files found in the game? The cite video? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

2009-11-01 assessment

I'm rating this as though you were going for GA class. Unfortunately it still has a long way to go before it's A class.

• The intro should be a mini-version of the article, covering the entirety of it in a few paragraphs. It should talk very basically about plot, gameplay, development and reception. Currently there's nothing about the reception of the game. Also citations are not needed in the intro if the information is covered elsewhere in the article.  Done
• It still needs an additional image. Something right-justified in the plot section would make the article flow better.  Done
• Avoid using phrases like "It is revealed". It's one of those "nails on a chalkboard" phrases for Wikipedia readers.  Done
• VGchartz is not considered a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources - other sources may be considered unreliable as well. Please ensure all of those are covered.  Done
• The reception section needs expansion, with additional cites from other reviewers, as right now only Official Xbox Magazine is directly cited.  Done
• The image Saw Videogame Screen 3.jpg needs better rationale to be considered for GA class.  Done
• There appears to be a lot of IP edits that detract from the article, making it unstable. It may be best to request page protection so that registered users can stabilize the article and prepare it for GA class. I personally usually request a 2+ week protection for article cleanup and cite any IP edits that detract from the article.  Done
• Denying Mid importance unless you can back up your statement. With aggregate scores in the 60's it's hardly a dominant example of success for the genre; X-Men Origins: Wolverine (video game), Spider-Man 3 (video game), Spider-Man 2 (video game), The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (video game) and even Cars (video game) rank higher, along with several others.  Not done (INVALID)
• I've listed below the GA criteria. I haven't checked off anything as we should start by addressing things above first. Feel free to use the strikeout tag ( ) to mark off anything that's been completed, and add comments below anything completed. As this type of game really isn't my style (I don't have the stomach for these games, and no offense, but I find them offensive) this is probably all I will contribute. Hopefully other editors will come along and further assess the situation. --Teancum (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Overall GA criteria

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Thanks for consideration, and it's understandable you don't fancy these type of games. I have put things in motion and requested the page be semi-protected for about 2 weeks In that time maybe we can get some things done. I'm fairly new, but I will work on what I can. Thanks.  Done for 2 weeks.--Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 22:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Began working on the article. I added a new image and gave proper rationale for the other. I also expanded the reception section, but I'm still working on that. Redid the intro with Wikipedian Micwa for better coverage and removed unnecessary cites. See checklist for more. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)