Talk:Don't Nod/GA1

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 03:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * "where once they had to pursue publishers themselves" - should be reworded to something like, "whereas they had previously had to pursue publishers themselves. Currently wording (i.e "once they had") seems inappropriate, it makes it sound like they have a much longer history and 'once' was a very long time ago.


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * The article's length is not a problem per se, but I see two areas needing expansion. Firstly the single sentence paragraph in 'History'. You can expand this with at least a sentence on each upcoming game. I see plenty of information in the 'Development' section of Vampyr that you could choose from. And is there any update on Life is Strange 2? What can you tell us about the production? There must at least be a source out there commenting on whether the developers had intentions to make a sequel to begin with or whether this is just a reaction to how popular the original was. Also when did development on Life is Strange 2 begin? Secondly the lead looks like it could use a little expansion. Perhaps mention the companies their titles have been published by, but feel free to choose from any of the information in the body or even infobox. It's just looking a little thin.
 * Did everything but the lead expansion. I fear that it might compromise the flow of the existing paragraph. If I start another paragraph, that would only last one line or two, which doesn't seem necessary.Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 13:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Freikorp (talk) 13:18, 21 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:
 * The infobox image is all good. Have you considered adding one of the free images of Life is Strange's directors winning an award to the article? As I'm sure you're aware Commons has several.
 * ✅ Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 10:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Is there any chance you can mention who is in the photo, or at least one person? Freikorp (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 13:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Looking forward to promoting this once the issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy for this to pass now. Congratulations. Don't feel obligated, but I have a peer review I'm looking for comments at if you're interested. Freikorp (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)