Talk:Dishonored/GA1

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

Reviewer: S@bre (talk · contribs) 01:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hullo! I'll be reviewing this article's GAN for you. An initial appraisal looks promising, though I have noted a few issues. I'll be following up shortly with the full review after I've spent some time looking through it. Watch this space! -- Sabre (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your input and getting this to GA! :D Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw the request for a copy-edit and I'll be dropping by here on a near daily basis to copy-edit this big guy, one part at a time, so any suggestions would be more than welcome (to avoid me doing superfluous work) :) Mathijsvs (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I do apologise for the delay in getting the review up, I got hit by a few off-wiki things that require more urgent attention. It'll hopefully be ready by Monday. Though I'll try to keep up with the copyediting progess mentioned above. -- Sabre (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Take your time, I'll hold back until your review is up, so we can do this in an orderly fashion :) Mathijsvs (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Alright, we have a potential for a very strong article here. I may be a little harsher than is possibly required for GA standards, but I think its necessary as this has very much got the capacity to go to FA. At the moment, we're on hold pending some changes.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * See below for both of these.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * Reply: I'm removing all redundant reference tags (since half of the references are repeated several times in the same paragraph). Mathijsvs (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * C. No original research:
 * No obvious issues here.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * See below, the main issue here is the reception section, which I believe to be fundamentally flawed in its approach. There are also a few extra sources that can be used for development.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Some ongoing activity, and occasional expansion, but nothing to really disrupt stability.
 * 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:
 * The video is unconventional, but I'm convinced of its usage and purpose. The captions for the two people images could be more interesting though. Take a look at Brütal Legend for example.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On Hold until issues resolved
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The video is unconventional, but I'm convinced of its usage and purpose. The captions for the two people images could be more interesting though. Take a look at Brütal Legend for example.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On Hold until issues resolved

Introduction



Gameplay

Setting Cast
 * "—known in the city as trans—" – something about the "trans" part of this feels like its missing something, like there's an omission or spelling error. Is there?
 * Reply - The source for it just says it is called Trans, I assume a riff on trans-fats maybe? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I just don't recall that ever being made explicit in the primary sources. Ah well, don't worry about it then. -- Sabre (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I just don't recall that ever being made explicit in the primary sources. Ah well, don't worry about it then. -- Sabre (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - From what I remember this is how the sources refer to him, I think he is actually called The Outsider. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking around the net a bit it seems both are used, but I'm more commonly seeing it without a definite "The". What does the game itself refer to him as in subtitles, in-game books, etc? -- Sabre (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * the subs don't capitalize the 'The', corrected. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking around the net a bit it seems both are used, but I'm more commonly seeing it without a definite "The". What does the game itself refer to him as in subtitles, in-game books, etc? -- Sabre (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * the subs don't capitalize the 'The', corrected. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Plot
 * Reply - Removed the description entirely, its in the cast section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - That was hard, lol, felt like I was having to dub a Japanese show for a Saturday Morning slot, removing all the references to kill. "Oh look he deployed his parachute off screen, he's ok" Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - Tried to better explain the context of the gift so its clear why it supports the idea. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - That was hard, lol, felt like I was having to dub a Japanese show for a Saturday Morning slot, removing all the references to kill. "Oh look he deployed his parachute off screen, he's ok" Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - Tried to better explain the context of the gift so its clear why it supports the idea. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - Tried to better explain the context of the gift so its clear why it supports the idea. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - Tried to better explain the context of the gift so its clear why it supports the idea. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - Tried to better explain the context of the gift so its clear why it supports the idea. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Development
 * Rock, Paper, Shotgun offers some useful articles to enhance the development and reception sections, it would be a good idea to rake them for useful information. The one about the heart in particular.
 * Reply - I looked at the first 2 sources but couldn't see anything of note related to the game, can you give me an idea what you were seeing? I added the Heart stuff from the 3rd source. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The interview with Smith touches upon the origins on the game based on his personal experiences, while the one with Houston discusses the nature of the freeform playstyles and their variable levels of violence in testing. Is there not anything out of either of those that you think could be integrated? -- Sabre (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - So I've re-read the Smith one and while interesting I can't really see anything strictly related to Dishonored, its an interview about Smith and goes into his history but he doesn't really say anything about how that specifically influenced the game, it seems like info what would be in his own personal article. At least I can't see how to integrate his parents deaths into this one. EDIT - I added in some stuff from the violence source. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "on side streets and alleyways to better suit the gameworld" – change to "one side streets and alleyways that would better suit the game's world"
 * Reply - I'm not sure you have this one right, the full line is "The pair chose to avoid the busier streets and focus on side streets and alleyways to better suit the gameworld", so the change to One doesn't seem to make sense. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, that's still supposed to be "on" not "one". Its a typo. -- Sabre (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "on side streets and alleyways to better suit the gameworld" – change to "one side streets and alleyways that would better suit the game's world"
 * Reply - I'm not sure you have this one right, the full line is "The pair chose to avoid the busier streets and focus on side streets and alleyways to better suit the gameworld", so the change to One doesn't seem to make sense. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, that's still supposed to be "on" not "one". Its a typo. -- Sabre (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Release
 * Reply Which would you suggest? this or this? There is also this which is concept art similar to the final mode but not exactly, the feet seem to be different. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The concept art one is doing it for me, I wouldn't worry that the feet are different from the final version. Throw on a suitable styled caption that links in with the text, and it'll fit in fine. Its always nice to have these WIP images to give a look into the development thought process. -- Sabre (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception

Ok, as far as I'm concerned, this entire section has a fundamentally flawed structure. This may be where I'm overextending into something closer to FA standards rather than GA ones so feel free to argue against this, but if you want to take the article further (and there's no reason it can't) then this is probably good advice. The entire thing essentially reads as an amalgamation of back of box quotes from reviewers or otherwise a review-by-review summary. This isn't a good approach, as it doesn't lend any depth of analysis to particular elements of the game. It just scratches across the surface of general critical opinion.

A better structure would be to have separate paragraphs discussing how reviews felt about particular aspects of the game. Theme the paragraphs by gameplay and design, plot and atmosphere, graphics and technology, etc etc, then do a final summary paragraph that draws similar reviewer opinions together. You'll probably need to use more reviews to get such an approach to bear fruit and be truly comprehensive, so be sure to use the reliable sources found in Metacritic and GameRankings, along less conventional (but still as reliable and attached to decent publishers) critical approaches that don't ascribe scores, such as Rock Paper Shotgun and Zero Punctuation to build it up. The end result is a far stronger reception section, that provides good detail as to individual elements of the game's reception. Take a look at Star Trek: Voyager – Elite Force, Brutal Legend or Halo: Reach for some inspiration.
 * Ok I have tried to do this here, is this what you mean? I haven't been through and copy edited yet because its 3am and my wrist is starting to hurt, but if you're happy with the content and organization I can CE it and add it tomorrow. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I like it! That's good, perhaps little over the top with quotage still, but still first rate. Take your time to copyedit and otherwise straighten it out, I'm not in any rush! -- Sabre (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply Ok moved that over and made a few changes, replaced a few quotes and tried to expand on what they were saying. Just your RPS sources to re-read now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that's the review. Other than the reception section, there's only really small things. The article overall is in great shape, well done on the work so far to all involved. Even with the reception section, there's not much holding back the article, and I can easily let it pass once these are dealt with. Sorry for the time its taken to get it done. -- Sabre (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * K, I'm just reading Batman for the week because I can't wait to see what is going on, then I'll take a look. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * K K, I think I'm up to date with your requests. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've made a couple of minor tweaks, and I'm happy to Pass the article now. You've done good work here, keep it up! -- Sabre (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * :D Thanks Sabre! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)