Talk:Cloud (video game)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Teancum (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing the article over the next few days. Below you will find the standard GAN criteria, along with a list of issues I have found. As criteria pass, a or  will be replaced with a. Below the criteria you'll see a list of issues I've found. Feel free to work on them at any time. I will notify you when I'm done checking over the article. At that time I'll allow the standard one week for fixes to be made.

Criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 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:

Issues found
(Ordered from top to bottom in the article)
 * The infobox image will probably have to be verified further if this is to go to FA. The tagging looks... weird.  The username that uploaded was JenovaChen (a developer), but has this been confirmed that it's actually him?  If so 1) the tagging still needs cleaned a bit, and 2) he should upload more free images for all of thatgamecompany's articles.  For now it's a non-issue, but that might come up during a FAN
 * Ah, my bad, didn't even check that image. I flipped it to a Fair-use license; even if it was him (pretty sure it was) he didn't singly own the copyright to that image- his group, and now thatgamecompany, did. I'm going to email him/thatgamecompany soon, I'll ask about free images.


 * The last sentence of the first lead paragraph feels long and confusing. I don't really have any suggestions as I didn't really follow what was being said.  Can it get rephrased?
 * Punctuation and verb tenses are my friends. That better?


 * The gameplay image caption isn't clear enough. Obviously gameplay can't be summed up in a caption, but I would say either describe the setting of the game (rather than the setting of the screenshot) or go into more detail as to what's going on (WP:CAPTION)
 * Reworked.


 * "Cloud was designed and released in 2005, by a team" - the comma is not needed
 * Fixed.


 * "The game began development in January 2005, and was released in late October, with its final update" - the first comma isn't needed, I'm fuzzy on whether the second is. Thoughts?
 * First one wasn't, second one was- there's a pause there but isn't at the first one. I have a tendency to throw commas in every time I use "and", which often isn't correct.


 * "The group was headed by Jenova Chen, and included" - remove the comma
 * Fixed. See? I do it all the time.


 * "twenty thousand dollars" is spelled out in the development section, but in the lead it's listed as "US$20,000" - one needs to coincide with the other
 * Changed to US$20,000 - MOS says that whenever you say dollars you have to specify which country, since there's so many.


 * "Hight was interested, though no deal was forthcoming." - This is a bit confusing. Was no deal ever struck?  If so this should be rephrased for clarity.
 * Reworked.


 * "William Usher of Game Tunnel also noted the visuals and audio, saying" - saying -> and said (past tense)
 * Technically it's fine since it was present tense as he said it (that's what, present perfect?) so you're allowed to shift at the quote, but changed anyway as nowhere else in reception did I do that so it's a bit jarring.


 * For historical purposes: At first I was going to question Game Tunnel, but it appears sufficient discussion has been made here to justify it as a reference.
 * Yeah, did the same thing.

I'm done with the review. Nice read. I didn't find much, so ping me back on this page once you're done/have responses. --Teancum (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks! Replied inline. -- Pres N  01:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks great! ✅ A bot should be along shortly to finish up the GA tagging and whatnot while I list the article. --Teancum (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)