Talk:1979 Revolution: Black Friday/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 12:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This looks interesting. I will complete the review by this week. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * More information about the game's plot would be nice.
 * You can mention about the game's controversy so that it truly summarizes the entire article.
 * 1979 Revolution: Black Friday is an adventure interactive drama video game that is viewed from a third-person perspective. - " that is viewed from a third-person perspective." is not supported by the source. I don't think it is necessary to mention it, given that most interactive drama are played from a 3rd person perspective.
 * Throughout the game, players are presented with the ability to interact with their surroundings - any examples?
 * Is that really necessary to add sources for the story section? It is almost pointless to have these citations that only mention the game's levels.
 * the first two years consisted of seeking money from financiers, and the game was developed over the following two year - This information should be supported by the International Business Times source instead.
 * the team was attracted to the idea of a game set during a revolution, ultimately settling on the Iranian Revolution. - What team? Other members of the development team?
 * The development and reception section is impressive.

Overall
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

It is a very well-written and comprehensive article. When the minor issues mentioned above are fixed, the article is good to go! Nice work getting all the gameplay screenshots as well! AdrianGamer (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, ! I went through and addressed all of your concerns. Let me know if there's anything else. – Rhain  ☔ 15:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is now a . Congratulations! AdrianGamer (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * AdrianGamer: How could just promote the article when there's a dispute over the title? Mhhossein (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is edit-warring, and all involved editors are trying to reach consensus at the talk page. If there is a content dispute then I would put it on hold. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * AdrianGamer: I know, no one is edit warring! but if you refer to the talk page you'll see that users are discussing about the title. --Mhhossein (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein, the name of the article is not part of the GA criteria, and a rename—which happened multiple times during the review itself—does not affect its status. I've seen articles renamed before a review, during it, and immediately after the conclusion of one, and none of them affected the review. The name really doesn't matter here. One exception might be if the name itself were considered non-neutral or violated BLP, but this is definitely not in that category. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset: Thanks for clarification. --Mhhossein (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)