Talk:Chocolate Castle/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:
 * Looks good, now.
 * 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:

Many thanks for your time MuZemike and for your helpful suggestions. Some of these are going to take some time, but there's a few which can be discussed now:
 * I've tweaked the lead, but I'm really struggling to split it into three. What should be the first paragraph consists of one medium and one short sentence, even with the infobox they don't take up a single line on my screen. The newsletter suggests merging the first and third paragraphs if reception is light, but that's the one area of the article which has plenty of material.
 * The development section reflects that the only two interviews I could find discussed White's past rather than any particular game in detail. Literally all he says about Chocolate Castle is that it was developed alongside Jasper's Journeys and that it's a platform for additional puzzles to be created. Given the choice with having no development section to speak of or at least giving the reader some background I chose the latter. I can certainly see why you brought this up and would do the same, but it is all it could be.
 * Indiegames.com is part of a group which in turn is a shard of a FTSE250 company, which specializes in industry-level video game coverage. I'm puzzled as to why other members of the project have shown so little enthusiasm for the site. Gamasutra is a sister to Game Developer Magazine, making it highly usable and regarded, these other sites are sisters to Gamasutra, like specialized sattelites. If Indiegames doesn't have an editorial procedure page then I expect it's because it doesn't need one, Tim W. is the driving force behind the site and he just gets on with it. The other thing highlighted is that Think do not have the site in their laundry list. Well, it's a much less commercial site anyway, but GameSetWatch (the group's central gaming blog which reprints articles from all the other sites and has original articles too) lists them as the next site on the top of their page and right in the middle of their vertical sidebar (scroll down). It's not like they're trying to hide it. Also, Tim W. writes a weekly round up which goes on Gamasutra. Regardless of whether or not the site is listed on Think's page it is distributed via the larger sites as legitimate journalism, and I think we need to add all of this group of sites to the reliable sources list.

I'll do my best to work on the issues you've highlighted. Someoneanother 23:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification on the Tim W. part. That source should be fine squarely on the basis that an expert is making that post. Whether the site itself is reliable can be discussed (again) elsewhere. MuZemike 17:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take another look at the lead when I get the chance. I have a class in a couple of minutes, so I have to get going. MuZemike 14:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned up and added additional information to the infobox as shown here. I also cleaned up the lead rather extensively to try to make it more concise and focused. I see what you mean by using just two paragraphs, so I kept it as such. I also removed the statement saying Lexaloffle is owned and operated by Joseph White, who began programming games at the age of 10 and released his first game at the age of 14, as I don't think that's relevant to the lead section. I've also intentionally wikilinked Lexaloffle as a redlink to possibly encourage creation of that article. Let me know what you think about it. MuZemike 17:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's looking good, thank you for that MuZemike. I've tried to remove some redundancy from the development section. I double-checked for any interviews and came up with multiple links to those two already in the article, they seem to be it for Lexaloffle. There's no additional information relating to Chocolate Castle, but at least the section is more punchy and comparitively less of it is now about White as opposed to the game. Someoneanother 18:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, saw your note, the information isn't there to take, so please fail the GA. Thanks very much for your time on this. Someoneanother 21:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. You should still be (and will be if a barnstar suffices) commended for bringing the article up from the jaws of deletion, though. Though not a GA, it is still a decent article, and I would personally vouch to speedy keep any subsequent AFD made on this. Nice job for the work, even I enjoyed working on it. Hopefully more stuff comes about the game that it can be included as a GA in the future. MuZemike 05:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The GAN does not pass for not meeting Good article criterion 3b. The article is not give due weight on the development of the game itself, but instead gives the history of the developer. It is not focused enough on the topic of the article. MuZemike 05:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)