Talk:Dead Space (2008 video game)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 17:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll be taking over the review of this article. The article seems to be well written so I'm pretty sure it will pass. I haven't reviewed since Monster of the Deep so this is I gonna be my first big review.Tintor2 (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good to pass but there are few parts that might be retouched: Other than that I find no relevant issues. I'll give it a pass once these issues are passed. All images seem to have a proper rationale and every reference seems to be a WP:Reliable source.Tintor2 (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I know the project has been discussing whether or we should include the year of the game but maybe it could revised to include the areas of the world it was released.
 * I couldn't find many foreign language stuff, except that it wasn't banned from anywhere. I've said it released worldwide.
 * Amendment, I've done some adjustment so hopefully it doesn't look too clunky.
 * The third paragraph of the lead section tends to repeat the term Dead Space too many times. I would suggest using something like "the game sold" or "It spawned two direct sequels and spin-offs" in the final section when talking about the impact it had.
 * I've done a rewrite there.
 * For the plot maybe "During efforts to escape and survive" could be replace with "despite his" to be more direct.
 * I've done a rewrite here.
 * This is just me wondering but maybe the article use a free image from the voice actors behind the supporting cast.
 * I didn't think it was worth it since there's no commentary at all about the voice recording or interviews with voice actors talking about the game specifically.
 * The second paragraph of critical reception could use an intro for the content in the form of a generalization before 1UP.com's comment.
 * I've done a slight adjustment. It's now got an intro.
 * I hope I've addressed all the points. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

So, let's go: 1. It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists) 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism) 3. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias 5. It is stable. No edit wars, etc 6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions) 7. Overall: Pass

Good work with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)