Talk:999: Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors/GA1

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

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 09:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * that could reach a greater audience - should simply be "great"
 * ✅, sort of. They wanted to reach a wider audience than they had with their previous VN titles, not just a wide audience in general.
 * The localization was handled by Aksys - wikilink Aksys. Use "Aksys Games" instead of simply Aksys
 * I don't think reception section needs to have lots of critics opinions. You can change it to "999 was positively received, with reviewers praising the story, writing and puzzles, but criticizing the game's tone and how the player is required to re-do the puzzles every time they play through the game. Reception of the game's presentation was mixed", and save the rest for the reception section (Perhaps you can incorporate them in the first opening paragraph of the reception section?)
 * They are presented from a first-person perspective - link first-person
 * I don't really see the need of having File:999cast.png. Its rationale is not strong and that most of the characters are featured in the game's cover art.
 * ✅ Agreed. Do you think I should write the characters' names in the image caption for the cover? I think it would be quite helpful to the reader, but I worry that it could get too long. Would it be best to add a footnote to the image caption, or is it okay to list all the character names in the caption?
 * You only need to mention that the cover art features the game's main characters. Their name is not really necessary.
 * You can add the two sources from refideas to the plot section.
 * I don't think this is necessary - we often use the work itself as a source for the plot, even in featured articles, but I might do it later. They don't actually cover the entire plot (the Technology Tell ref, which always seems to take five minutes or more for me to load, doesn't cover the actual ending iirc, and skips most of the middle), but I guess they can still be used for those parts.
 * Among scrapped themes were the use of hands as a major theme - Is the use of hands really a "theme"?
 * That was a very neat development section.
 * Thanks, I'm quite happy with it.
 * Wouldn't the localization section be better if it is under the release section instead?
 * Both Schilling and Thomas appreciated the puzzles found some puzzle solutions and hints to be too obvious or explanatory - "Both Schilling and Thomas appreciated the puzzles, but they found some puzzle solutions and hints to be too obvious or explanatory"
 * That was a very neat development section.
 * Thanks, I'm quite happy with it.
 * Wouldn't the localization section be better if it is under the release section instead?
 * Both Schilling and Thomas appreciated the puzzles found some puzzle solutions and hints to be too obvious or explanatory - "Both Schilling and Thomas appreciated the puzzles, but they found some puzzle solutions and hints to be too obvious or explanatory"
 * Both Schilling and Thomas appreciated the puzzles found some puzzle solutions and hints to be too obvious or explanatory - "Both Schilling and Thomas appreciated the puzzles, but they found some puzzle solutions and hints to be too obvious or explanatory"

Overall
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 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 corporation:
 * 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:

Impressive! The article does not have any issue that will stop it from promoting, so I am not going to put it on hold. Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors is promoted to. Congratulations! Don't forget to fix the little issues I raised above though. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I'll go through your comments and make fixes later today.--IDVtalk 12:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have done most of your suggested changes now. I left a question under your suggestion for the image, and would be grateful for your thoughts.--IDVtalk 22:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)