Talk:Phantasmagoria (video game)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I should have this to you by tomorrow ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * "released by Sierra On-Line" - I own older Sierra games and I could swear that they were only known as "Sierra On-Line" in the 80s, didn't they change their name to just "Sierra" when this was released?
 * Most of the sources I found from 1995 refer to "Sierra On-Line" so I believe that is their name. Most of these sources are offline, but as an example, here is an online 1995 sources that calls it by this name. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead could be slightly better organised and could also be compressed ideally into three paragraphs (though if you want to keep the four paragraphs, that's fine as the article is lengthy)!
 * I've tried to keep the lead as succinct as possible given the length of the article, and I tried to present the info in chronological order as its presented in the article itself. I know it's a long lead, but WP:LEADLENGTH says a lead should be "three or four paragraphs" for an article over 30,000 characters like this one, so I think it's appropriate. That being said, are there any specific elements you feel should be cut, condensed or reorganized? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I was being too picky - the lead should be good for this GAN (though things might change if you want to take it to FAC) ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no release dates in the lead?
 * I didn't include it because I thought the lead was already lengthy, and it was covered by the infobox. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see WP:VG/GL specifically says the lead should contain the release date, so I've now added it. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  23:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead mentions nothing on a plot of the game (if you want to include it, the plot could easily go into the first paragraph)
 * I've added a sentence about the plot, though if it can be improved I'm open to that. :) —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sierra On-Line is mentioned again in the Gameplay section - if I'm wrong about the whole thing then please leave it be!
 * As per above, I think it's right. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "The term referring to a 17th-century theatrical horror show in which "spirits of the dead"" - refers
 * Fixed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "The game developers realized early that the game could not be completed entirely in-house due to the large scope of the project" - this might read better as The game developers realized early during development that the game could not be completed entirely in-house due to the large scope of the project
 * Changed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "The only actor she was not involved with choosing was Victoria Morsell as the protagonist, Adrienne Delaney" - so did Mark Seibert choose her?
 * Yes. To make this more clear, I changed the wording to "The only actor that Siebert chose without Williams' input was Victoria Morsell..." —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "The total filming took about four months, 12 hours a day. shooting six days a week" - syntax error (missing comma)
 * "There was no legislated rating system for computer games in place" - worldwide or just in the US?
 * I believe this refers to the United States. I've clarified. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * " It also encouraged parents to review the material before providing it to children and asked retailers not to tell it to minors" - sell
 * Fixed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Williams said the company was uncomfortable with the violent content in Phantasmagoria and did not attempt sell the game aggressively as Sierra would have" - they didn't want to sell the first game or its sequel?
 * This refers to the sequel. I've reworded to clarify. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

On hold
This is an excellent article that is very comprehensive and well referenced. It is well written, broad and is would make a very worthy GA, if not an FA. One of my mentions include some re-organisation of the lead, although I'm actually happy the way it is but it does not contain any release dates or plot details, rather focusing on development. If all of the above can be clarified I'll happily promote this ☠  Jag  uar  ☠ 21:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the fast review! I've made changes based on your remarks, and if you think the lead needs more improvement, I'm happy to work on it with you. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted
Thank you for addressing them so quickly! The article now meets the GA criteria and as I said above, I think the lead is fine as it does summairse the article well although if you are looking to take this to FAC I'm sure other people would have a say. Anyway, well done, this was an excellent article ☠  Jag  uar  ☠ 15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)