Talk:Clock Tower (series)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 13:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Placing this one of hold so minor issues can be addressed. Well done overall. Freikorp (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * "The game also features a dog companion the player can use to attack enemies and solve puzzles" - Why are you telling me this? Have I missed something?
 * This is a feature which distinguishes it from Clock Tower 3. I reworded the passage. TarkusAB talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "the sexual objectification of the main character, Fiona, has been repeatedly highlighted as one of the games strongest elements" - this is interesting. Reading it makes me very curious about how sexual objectification can be considered a strong element. Can you expand on this at all?
 * The details are available on the Haunting Ground page. Didn't want to get into too much here since it's not even a Clock Tower game. I added a little more. TarkusAB talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "The most recent entry, Clock Tower 3, received similar reviews to the first two titles." As this stage you've already mentioned it is the 'most recent entry' three times. You can drop this mention, and maybe the one before it as well.
 * Dropped it from several mentions. Only mentioned once now. TarkusAB talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "He is also often identified as one of the scariest characters in video games." - Why is he identified in this way? You can expand on this. One sentence would be enough.
 * Expanded a little. TarkusAB talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "The film was to be produced by Mayhem Project" - What is the Mayhem Project? Since there's no Wikilink, can you explain what this is in any way? Otherwise it's not helpful.
 * This was mentioned to differentiate it from the other studio that picked it up later. I removed both studio names, not really important. TarkusAB talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * There's some inconsitency in the reference formatting. For example some sources are listed with "www.gamerankings.com" as the publisher whereas others have "GameRankings". All references need to be formatted consistently. Either the name of the website, or the base url, no mixtures. Some of the references use the 'website=' parameter, others use 'publisher='. This is resulting in, for example, IGN appearing as both plain text and italics througout the reference section. Pick one parameter and make it consistent throughout the whole article.
 * OK I fixed the reference formatting. TarkusAB talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * The third paragraph in the 'History and development' section is a bit thin in comparison to the others. Are you certain you can't expand it at all?
 * I really...really wish I could. There's almost no sources out there. The only resource which may have details is the official JP strategy guide. I bought it and it's currently in transit from Japan. Until that arrives and I translate it, there's nothing I can do. I could merge it with the fourth paragraph for the time being if you think that looks better. TarkusAB talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Concerns addressed. TarkusAB talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Happy to promote this now. Freikorp (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)