Talk:A Boy and His Blob/GA1

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Prose/Style
 * Try to avoid one-sentence and even two-sentence paragraphs, like the first sentence in Plot and the paragraph at the end of Development. They should be expanded or consolidated with other paragraphs.


 * Per standard video game article conventions, the Gameplay section should precede Plot.


 * There is a large developer quote in the Plot section; it should probably go in Development. Use reviews to indicate the relationship between the main characters in Plot.


 * Be sure to wikilink terms in their first appearance in the article proper (WayForward and Majesco Games in Development, for instance).


 * The Reception section is a little awkward. Consider merging the first sentence with the large paragraph, and then breaking up that big paragraph into two or three smaller ones.  "Walls of text" are unwieldy.


 * Inlines in the lead are generally unnecessary (including the infobox).

Comprehensiveness/Sources


 * This article may need a little more info to be accessible to a non-gamer. What is a 2D puzzle platformer, for instance?  Also, the Gameplay section needs more details on the blob's abilities.  A few examples of the shapes that it can turn into to navigate the levels would suffice.


 * The first paragraph in Plot is unsourced and may be considered original research. There has to be information about the story, however minimalist, in reviews.


 * The first sentence in Reception is unsourced.


 * These sources are fine for GA. However, the Joystiq review may be a problem at any future FAC.


 * Four aggregate sites in the reviews infobox is excessive. Two at the most.  Also, I like to see reviews in the infobox go by alphabetical order, but that's trivial.

Images
 * Each image needs a copyright tag. It looks like the images are scheduled for deletion next week so I would recommend using Non-free game screenshot for the gameplay image and Non-free character for the concept art.  If you agree, simply add the tags and that's that.
 * Ive tagged both images with the Non-free game screenshot as the concept art states that it was grabbed from the game also, but it can always be changed. Salavat (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me.— Mr. Van Tine (t – c)   15:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The FUR for the images are adequate for GA status, but they will require more if the article goes to FAC. That being said, the caption for the gameplay image should specifically describe how the blob is using its abilities in the picture.

All said, a well-written article. This article is on hold until these issues can be addressed. The reviewer has one week to fix them but more time can be allotted if warranted. Keep up the good work. Reviewer: — Vantine84 (t – c)   06:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Secondary addition
Don't forget that all images need alt text per WP:ALT to pass GA. --Teancum (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh...is this new? I don't remember hearing about it before. —  Mr. Van Tine (t – c)   05:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen this brought up on another review recently but have also noticed not all reviews are mandating this. --Remy Suen (talk) 12:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The good article criteria do not mention this specifically, but criterion 6b says "Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions." The page on captions says that all images should have alt text.  I suppose that alt text isn't too difficult to do, so I'll agree with Teancum for this review. —  Mr. Van Tine (t – c)   05:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see a request for a second opinion; is the request on a specific part of an article or the article in general? Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 13:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article itself. — Mr. Van Tine (t – c)   11:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion
Given the time to repair the article and the fact that the issues still need addressed. I recommend failing the article for the time being. Nominator had only one reply to issues listed, and has not made edits since. User:Vantine84 has made several edits to improve the article, but in the end the issues still need additional work, and it's been nearly a month.

Recommendation: Fail -- until issues are completely addressed, at which point it can be renominated. --Teancum (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion
It appears that issues in the review have still not been addressed, nominator has not edited since 1 January, recommend immediate fail. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)