Talk:Potato Sack/GA1

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

Reviewer: New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs) 19:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Placeholder until tonight. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Due to unforeseen circumstances, I cannot review this article immediately. I will probably be able to on Monday night, but if someone wants to take over, feel free. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I might be able to take over this one, if you're still busy. Hammerbrodude (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll take that silence to mean "still busy". Very well. So we're doing this? Alright. I'll commence. Confirming that I am the above user, by the by. Emmy Altava  01:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer: Emmy Altava  01:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick-Fail Criteria: All passed.
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There are quite a few very... strange sentences, peppered generously throughout the article. Read everything aloud and ensure it all sounds right. If you (or anyone else) make the effort to try and fix a couple of them, I will be willing to assist in finishing the task.
 * Updated first half of article. I'll take the second whenever I have time. Emmy   Altava  07:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * At least three occasions have extraneous citations: two with four, which is alright, and one with seven, which is really pushing it. To say nothing of the source that was used 22 times... try to replace a couple of that one's uses, if you can. I don't think that last issue is criteria, so I won't count it against you, but it might still be a good idea to fix it. Also, the Edge article links don't work for me for some reason.
 * What makes Gamesindustry.biz a reliable source, especially since I can't see the darn article it's linking to?
 * What makes PCWorld a reliable source?
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Do something to break up the Development section, please. An image might be nice, but it could be a better idea to split it; perhaps into pre-release and post-release. (of the ARG, that is.)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No issues with bias, as far as I'm concerned.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No meaningful disputes since August? Fine with me.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Captions are fine, images are relevant, the single non-free image has a rationale. Spiffing.
 * 1) Overall: On Hold
 * Pass/Fail:

The article has a couple citation quirks, but it seems to relish in particularly awkward wordings... it may be a good idea to revise the article. If the article is not proofread in the next 168 hours (exactly 7 days following the time at the end of this line), it will be failed. However, it is very much possible for the issues with the article to be addressed partially if not completely by that time, so I will, for the moment, place it on hold. I'm not going to rewrite the article, but if someone displays the willingness to help this article reach GA status, I will offer my own assistance. Emmy Altava 04:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll read through to try to catch the odd sentences, but to address the sourcing issues: GamesIndustry.biz is an adjunct publication of Eurogamer, and would meet the same reliability metrics there. It's a free registration to see articles (though there are paywall options too). PCWorld is a long-running print magazine that also has expanded its publishing to the website, and has been a reliable source for PC gaming for a long time.  The 22-repeated use source can be cut down, though the content of it is unique (from a RS standpoint, I can probably dig in forums but that's not going to fly); eg the last two para of dev only use that source, so I can likely source it once on each save for quotes and cut down the #s. --M ASEM  (t) 19:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article looks better already. You've earned passing marks on 2b, 3b, and I'll try to help out with 1a if it's still necessary. In any case, whenever that's done, the article is about ready to be passed. I'll examine it now. Emmy   Altava  22:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've become increasingly busy over the last couple of days. I've tried to help out with most of the first half of the article, and I'll attempt to finish the proofreading, but ultimately, I'm going to have to turn the final verdict over to someone else... again. This just isn't the luckiest nomination, it seems. Emmy   Altava  23:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm back from my little wiki-break for the Thanksgiving holiday, and it seems that nobody has volunteered to take over. Which is... not unsurprising. In any case, I'm going to finish this review myself. Right now. Sorry for the wait; it's been too long. Emmy   Altava  09:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead: Checks out! Emmy  Altava  09:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC) History: Players who had [...] played each of the potato sack games for a minimum amount of time: how long? Does it vary with the game? Otherwise, this section is fine. Emmy  Altava  09:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Development Spiffing. I'll try to get the reception now, but it's still nearly daybreak my time so I might fall asleep. Emmy  Altava  10:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Reception: I did. Done. Congratulations, the article has passed. I'll do the processing and such now. Emmy  Altava  20:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)