Talk:Sea of Thieves/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 22:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't heard of this game but it looks like a lot of effort has been put into the article. I'll make sure to give it a good read before I come back with my review. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The article's coverage is good, but reading through the first few sections it looks like the article may be in a need of a full copy-edit. I realise that it has already had a member of the guild working on it, but I have come across a few grammatical errors and even missing words that I would like you to address before I do a full review. I would also like to see you archive any online sources that are being referenced by the article so readers can verify your claims in the future when those pages are no longer accessible. Two other things: the images in the article are fine, but can we get one or two more? Are there any of the development team that could help support the prose. Also, the copyvio tool has picked up this external page as a potential copyright violation. Can you investigate that? I will put this review on hold until you are ready for me to give a full review. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• For the copyvio part, I am sure it is YouTube pulling data from here. I try to limit the number of non-free use image in the page and I don't really think there is any free use image that I can use. I don't quite know what you mean by "Are there any of the development team that could help support the prose". I will look into the prose later. OceanHok (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I thought that might be the case for the copyvio part. On the images, it is not uncommon to include an image of the director or writers, for example, if such an image is available. It was just a suggestion. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I have done some copyediting myself, but let me know if you still think it is still too rough. OceanHok (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
      • That's looking a lot better. I'll have a full read of the article and come back here with any other issues that I find. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I am happy with your responses here and the changes made so far. I think the article now meets the criteria (quality writing, broad coverage, neutral, no copyright violations) and the only other things I could see when reading through were nitpicky personal things, so I'll spare you those. I am going to go ahead and pass this review. Good work on the article, and congratulations! - adamstom97 (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)