Talk:Titan Quest/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 14:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty, I shall take this article for review. I will start working on the review itself soon. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Very sorry for the extended wait, the review should drop tonight. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	*LEAD: Titans should be wikilinked in the lead. "due to adjusting the game" Rewrite this, messy. GAMEPLAY - avatar should be wiki linked wikilink "fog of war" "these unlock experience points" right? The leveling happens as a result. "Main Quests related ot the central narrative" - to "that act as various Merchants" - don't need various, and merchants should probably be lowercase. "selling equipment and items: items can" - the word items is back to back in this sentence. "scattered through environments" - perhaps "throughout the games environments"? Its a bit vague currently. "after first leveling up" - what does this mean? After they level up the first time? SYNOPSIS - Titans should be wikilinked. DEVELOPMENT - perhaps it should be "while he was working on Age of Empires" instead of "when" "Enemy creatures were drawn from the various mythologies the team drew from" - drew and drawn in the same sentence. "Sheidow valued the chance of working with mythical creatures" - to work on mystical creatures? All sorted.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Formatted well, though the introduction should probably be reformatted into three paragraphs. Done.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Everything is laid out beautifully and properly per Wikipedia guidelines and norms.
	2b. 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).	All the links are operative per Checklinks. As for reference check, are Game Banshee, Droid Gamers and Bloggers Reliable Sources? The Blogger post is by Sheidow himself, or I wouldn't have used them, so in this case I think it's situational. Game Banshee and Droid Gamers are sources I've seen used in other articles without flags being raised, so I thought they were suitable for use here, as one is related to a particular port of the game, and the other is an original interview with information not available anywhere else.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The categories look good, but is the game still "Windows only" since its iOS release? Also, shouldn't it get labeled "iOS game" and Android game in the category section? Also, I checked five references in different sections to spot check and make sure content was reliably sourced and it was. Categories sorted. Usually forget those.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright infringement that the detector can find, and the one match was a quote in quotations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All information is within the scope of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article appropriately sized, no need for merger or sub-articles.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article shows no bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Very stable, no arguing or disputes present.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The second and third images are well tagged and have good rationales. The first image, however, is a mess on the image page with several tags that need to get fixed and a bare bones rationale. Sorted.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The gameplay caption doesn't make sense even as a fragment, make it longer if you have to, but definitely make it clearer. Sorted.
	7. Overall assessment.	Great job! The article could use some more prose work, but it is really good now, so great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)