Talk:Omori (video game)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 20:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I will review this one. Lazman321 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

1a - Clear and concise prose
The article reads pretty clearly. This criterion does ✅. Lazman321 (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

1b - Adherence to the Manual of Style
All the required Manual of Style criteria for a Good Article have been met. The lead summarizes the key aspects, the layout is standard for video games, there aren't really any words to watch out for, all fictional elements are clearly marked as such, and there are no lists. With this analysis in mind, this one does ✅. Lazman321 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

2a - List of references
All the references are identifiable and are listed appropriately. The article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

2b - Reliable sources
As per WP:VG/S, TheSixthAxis and DarkStation are both unreliable sources and have to be replaced, especially in the reception section. This is because they are both independent blogs with no editorial oversight and no reputation of being credible sources. I am uncertain about the Destructoid source by Patrick Hancock as he is not a staff member. I am also a little bit uncertain about Noisy Pixel, Fextra Life, and HyperHype as I don't recognize them at all and are independent, but they do have editorial policies. I will let these sources slide for now, though I'd personally bring them up at WT:VG/S. Also, note that I did find a better source to replace the Fextra Life source. This news post by Gematsu is a better source as the founder and editor-in-chief of the website and the author of the article is Sal Romano, who wrote for GameZone and VG247, both of which are considered reliable; not to mention Gematsu has been cited by reliable publications. Lazman321 (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed both of those sources and replaced them where appropriate. As for the three unincluded sources, I've excised those as well, as none of them look that reliable and they've not really that important (one of them misspells a word in the title, which is not a hallmark of strong editorial direction). I may get around to putting them up at WT:VG/S, but it's not a huge priority, as random video game websites are dime a dozen.
 * Personally, I think that the Destructoid source is fine; it's included in the reviews section alongside other editorially vetted content. If I'm not mistaken, WP:VG/S indicates that the "community blogging" part is the main issue. I can't verify that Hancock's not part of Destructoid staff, and some of his older content seems to indicate he is; it's quite normal for journalists to be employed part-time.
 * And regarding the Gematsu post, I appreciate it; but I've been able to use a preexisting source, so it's unnecessary. - Novov T  C  04:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

2c - No original research
Plans for a 3DS port are never mentioned in the sources. Some of the paragraphs end with unsourced statements, even when the source before the statements can back it up. The PC Gamer quote does not have an in-line citation even though the score is sourced in the reviews template. Same with the Rock Paper Shotgun quote. Lazman321 (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe I've fixed all of these issues, let me know if I've missed any. - Novov T  C  04:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

2d - No copyright violations
With a copyvio score of 0.0 %, this article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

3a - Main aspects
The main aspects of this game have been addressed (gameplay, development, and reception), meaning the article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

3b - Focus
The article is entirely focused on the game. At no point does it stray off topic. This article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

4 - Neutral
This article is neutral in its writing, and all opinions are clearly marked as such. This article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

5 - Stable
There is no ongoing edit war or dispute. Therefore, this article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

6a - Copyright tags
The fair use rationales on the images are valid enough to include the images in the article. This criterion does ✅. Lazman321 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

6b - Relevant media
All the images (a cover art and screenshot) are relevant to the game. As such, this criterion does ✅. Lazman321 (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

7 - Verdict
The biggest problem is the sources right now. If you can get rid of unreliable sources and improve on source intergrety, this article might have a chance at passing. I am placing this review for the standard seven days or until all the problems raised have been dealt with. Lazman321 (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I believe I've fixed all the problems you've mentioned; again, let me know if any are still extant. - Novov T  C  04:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is still one problem left unaddressed. In the development section, two paragraphs end with an unsourced statement. I would recommend moving the OMOCAT Blog citation to the end of these paragraphs so the statements can be sourced. Lazman321 (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Novov T  C  02:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This article has the Good Article review and will now be considered a Good Article. Good job. Lazman321 (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contributing your time. I'll look at returning the favour and helping contribute to the GAN backlog later this month. - Novov T  C  04:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)