Talk:Survival horror/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is overall a snappy and effective article, although I have a couple of minor concerns before it passes as a GA.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   For the clear majority, the prose is great. However, some repetition in wording did hit me in the "Game design" section—a couple of rather close sentences start out with "These games..." Perhaps some variation in sentence opening could added here.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   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):

   Citation styles are somewhat inconsistent. The "work" and "publisher" fields are used interchangeably, when they should be one or the other throughout for web sources. See in particular the citations to IGN and GameSpot sources. There's some inconsistent use with linking work and publisher fields, as well as with camelcasing for GameSpot as well.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   I'm wondering if some mention of Left 4 Dead might be prudent; it is a survival horror of sorts, but differs in that it is a dedicated multiplayer game. It is referred to in several sources, and cited for a couple of points in the "Game design" section. Perhaps a quick mention after the bit that most of survival horrors are single-player may be useful as an example of one that is not—and a very successful one at that. Alternatively, it could be referred to in the "Transformation" section, so to keep the "Game design" section clear of game examples.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Both images lack fair use rationales for this article. The existing rationales on each page are very poor and relate to other articles. In addition, File:RE1 screen.jpg cannnot be considered low-resolution.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The image for Alone in the Dark doesn't actually seem to show anything of note. Perhaps an image like this may be more suitable; after all, the article refers to supernatural monsters and zombies and the like, it would make sense for one of the screenshots to contain an example of this.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm putting this review on hold for the moment, pending response and resolution of the above points. -- Sabre (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for the helpful review:
  • 1A: I tweaked the prose to reduce the redundancy. However, I also added some prose to deal with 3B
  • 2B: I fixed a lot of the sources. Let me know if I missed anything.
  • 3B: I added substantial information about more action-oriented titles, including Left 4 Dead.
  • 6A: I fixed the FUC for all the images.
  • 6B: However, I have not dealt with the Alone in the Dark image yet, because I can't upload images. I'm waiting for a little bit of help. In the meantime, let me know if the prose is still okay.
• So, in summary, everything should be fine, except 1A which is questionable, and 6B which I hope to deal with over the next day or two. Randomran (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• That's good, I've just performed a really minor copyedit for some last niggles. The prose as far as I'm concerned now is fine. I've also replaced the recently added Left 4 Dead image with a fresh one - in contrast to the Alone in the Dark image, that one's probably got a bit too much going on in it. Its not really a good image for representing the game as a whole. I'll deal with the image for Alone in the Dark if your having trouble. -- Sabre (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate the give and take. If you could replace the AITD image, you'd be helping me out big time. Let me know if there's any other prose or formatting that needs cleaning up. Randomran (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, the new image is in place. I believe we have reached the stage of a pass. Congratulations! -- Sabre (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the useful feedback, and for getting a little hands-on with the article. Next step, FA! Randomran (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)