Talk:Doom (2016 video game)/GA1

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

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 13:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Is the game being classified as a horror game? Just because you are fighting demons in hell does not mean that it is a horror game.
 * It is a reboot of the Doom series and is the first major installment in the series since the release of Doom 3 in 2004 and the fourth title in the main series of games. - This is a very clumsy sentence.
 * For the lead, basic information should go first, followed by gameplay/story, followed by development and reception.
 * along with access to an upcoming beta test for players who pre-ordered Wolfenstein: The New Order. - This does not happen in 2014.
 * Full gameplay was later shown at the E3 2015, - Not important enough for the lead.
 * The gameplay returns to a faster pace with more open ended levels, closer to the first two games rather than the slower survival horror approach taken by Doom 3, while also featuring environment traversal, character upgrades, and the ability to perform executions on enemies known as "glory kills". - This sentence is way too long.
 * Any sales information that can be covered in the lead as well?
 * The lead is a bit too short and it does not seem to be matching with the article's size. WP:LEADLENGTH.
 * The gameplay section is a bit of a mess. You are including every piece of gameplay information in one single paragraph and don't have any arrangement at all.
 * The game is played from what perspective? It should be mentioned in the gameplay section.
 * "Glory Kills" is a newly introduced melee execution system similar to that of the PWAD Brutal Doom, wherein, when enough damage has been dealt to an enemy, the game will highlight it - unnecessary comparison with PWAD Brutal Doom.
 * relies upon fuel but can be used to instantly cut through enemies and provide a greater-than-normal drop of ammunition for the player - not supported by the source. Here is one for you.
 * Source 3 seems to be broken.
 * Where is the exploration and the character upgrades mentioned? What about the Doomguy collectible you can find in the game? What about character customization.
 * You can do taunt in multiplayer. You mention the modes but do not tell me what they are. How many maps are there at launch? What demons you can play as?
 * Co-devs like Certain Affinity and Escalation should be mentioned in the development section instead.
 * An in-game map editor designed to be both "powerful" and "easy to use" - This is some development stuff.
 * I have no clue what SnapMap offers at all after reading the SnapMap section.
 * Carmack stated in 2011 that "you can't have 30 guys crawling all over you at 60 frames per second at this graphics technology level because it's painful. — So, [in single-player] we can have 30 demons crawling all over you on there - The quote does not seem to be very useful.
 * Paragraph 3 and 4 in the development section are too short. Try to merge them together, or merge them to somewhere else.
 * Carmack said at Quakecon 2011 that, once Rage shipped, - "QuakeCon", not Quakecon
 * "Every game has a soul. Every game has a spirit. When you played Rage, you got the spirit. And [Doom 4] did not have the spirit, it did not have the soul, it didn't have a personality. - You should paraphrase it and then put the quote in a quotebox. It seems like an important quote that should be highlighted.
 * From what was seen in the QuakeCon presentation, the new "Doom" was to feature mechanics such as melee combat, finishing moves, and the ability to rip someone's arm off and use it to open a biometric security door. - It is unnecessary to describe the Doom demo.
 * Also said to be featured in the game are double-jumping and freedom of movement such as vaulting and manteling - Also unnecessary.
 * Initial reception of the trailer was positive to Doom's probably not a game for you should be moved to the pre-release reception section.
 * Stratton had something to add regarding the game for not having any sort of personality. (didnt match the game we thought people wanted, still a quality product)
 * Doom 4 is powered by id Tech 5.
 * The Rage team and the Doom team exchanges information as well, and that it is the first time id have two projects in parallel development. More frequent key releases as well.
 * Non-linear exploration and combat focus.
 * Level design is missing.
 * Id's vision for the new Doom and information about their inspirations are missing as well.
 * Movement is one of the most important pillars, Glory kills make movement even faster. Martin described it as "swimming". There is more information about level design as well.
 * The design philosophy behind the progression system.
 * Fans will be happy with Doom 4.
 * Graham Joyce was once the game's writer.
 * Not getting mod support besides Snapmap. (See the GI interview as well) The design behind SnapMap.
 * This interview should be used more extensively. Here and here are another interview.
 * The Wolfenstein alpha and beta stuff can be split to a new section along with all the game's reveal, promotion, release and post-release content.
 * Those players were also eligible for selection to participate in the game's multiplayer-only limited alpha, which ran between December 3 and 6, 2015. - What were included in the alpha/beta?
 * The game is launching uncut in Germany. It comes with a reversible cover art as well. There is also an Indycar promotion as well
 * Where is the information about post-release support. Unto the Evil, game demo, VR, photo mode, broken PC version getting fixed? Potential single-player release?
 * What about fans reaction in QuakeCon 2014. RS seems to have covered it.
 * cinematic trailer is created by Joe Kosinski.
 * As the tag suggested, you need to paraphrase the quotes in the reception section.
 * The game also received praise from other video game creators, including Cliff Bleszinski and Greg Kasavin. - Kasavin did say the game for answering questions other shooters do not answer.
 * [Optional] The structure of the reception section is actually quite good. However, these reviews are more or less the same. Single-player is praised, while multiplayer is criticized. I suggest to trim it down slightly and make the section more condensed.
 * Doom finally takes UK No. 1 six weeks after release. This should be mentioned. It is on Steam Chart in its week of release as well.
 * Source 14 is not complete. It is missing author, work/publisher, date and accessdate
 * Who is source 22's publisher? It comes from QuakeCon official channel, not "Mattc0m".
 * DSO Gaming does not seem to be a RS.
 * [Optional] The Jimquisition is a situation source. If I were you, I would use a RS to replace him.
 * It isn't a screenshot of the "Doom Slayer". If it is a screenshot of the Doom Slayer, I should be looking at his design instead.
 * The image does not really show me much about the game. If I were you, I would choose a screenshot about glory kills instead, which seems to be one of the game's headline feature.

Overall
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list corporation:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

It is a very reliably sourced article. However, the lead and reception need to be reworked, while the gameplay and development section is not complete, and is missing quite a lot of crucial information. The arrangement of the article needs some more work as well. There are some rather serious issues that prevented it from being a good article, and I actually don't think it is suitable to nominate an article so close after its original release. It is getting there, but there is still lots of room for improvement. Don't be frustrated. If you have fixed the above issues, feel free renominate it again and I may come back and review it again. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am striking out text of problems that have been resolved. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 00:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the reception, I think some lines can be cut as it seems rather large if there is an issue with sentences and quoting, basically being less allowing more focus perhaps? Frankly Man (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't saw this comment. I'm sorry. Some lines could be cut, and that the reception section should have as little quotes as possible, though I'm not saying there should be nonee. If you interpret the quotes and rephrase them, the section should have very little problems. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am running out of ways how I can improve the article, and I feel more and more upset as the article ages without the status, yet I feel that I must make the article achieve the status. My point? I am looking for more ways to improve the article, but there currently is not any that appears to be obvious. Perhaps, another review would work? Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 04:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically I have closed the review already, so you need to start a new one anyway some day in the future. There is no deadline, so it isn't really necessary to rush the article. I can throw my reviewer role away and work with you together if you need any extra help. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be ideal, especially given that you have pointed out the problems and given solutions and therefore must know how to fix many of them. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 20:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would get the reception/release/gameplay section done very soon. Meanwhile, you can see if the interviews above still have any use.

Questions
I can cite evidence about this later, but I will say this: I have written Bethesda Softworks an email regarding the Doom Indianapolis 500 car and whether I may use their video to take a good screenshot of the car and post it on Wikipedia, and this is what I got: Bethesda does not provide formal permission to post videos [or screenshots thereof] on YouTube or similar sites [such as Wikipedia]. Generally we don’t mind fan videos so long as you’re using legal copies of the game, are not being posted to make a profit (through advertising or other means), and are in good taste. I am convinced that this means that I may use a screenshot of the video, but the problem is that it does not directly give me the permission to do so, and my point of asking them in the first place is that I believe that the talk about the car is better explained with a free image than just in words, so what should I do? Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 01:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on images, so I can't really answer you. Sorry about that. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Lastly, may I nominate this article for the GA-status again? This review seems to be a little outdated and almost complete. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 01:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you can nominate it again now that I have finished the multiplayer/SnapMap/release/paraphrase stuff. It would take a while before another reviewer pick it up, so I would really recommend you to incorporate these 2 sources: (listed above)  (listed as refideas). They seem to be very useful, and would definitely make your way to bring the article up to GA status easier. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)