Talk:Red Dead Redemption/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

First off, let me say that I'm stoked someone wants to get this amazing game passed as a Good Article. I spent many an hour playing RDR and hope to see it promoted. That being said, I still have to review it fairly, and there are some issues that currently keep it from passing. Below you'll see my list of issues I've found, and if I'm still working on finding problems, the symbol. Please do not wait until I'm done reviewing to fix these issues. In fact, I'd much prefer given the number of them so far that you start right away.


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Issues found

 * Per WP:LEAD and WP:LEADCITE everything in the lead should appear in the body of the article, and references should not be in the lead if they can be referenced in the article. Therefore there should be no references in the lead.
 * (x)
 * ✅ --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick comment I don't see any issues of it here, but for future reference, the lead can contain references if a.) the information may be questioned, or b.) there's a quote. I only mention this because it sounded like there should be no references at all. -- JDC808  ♫  16:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a similar issue in the infobox. Euphoria as an AI engine is never spoken of in the prose, and RAGE is barely mentioned. Please expand the prose for these two parts of the overall engine and move the references out of the infobox. The citations for release dates can stay.
 * (x)
 * ✅ I further clarified what Euphoria is. --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The gameplay section is sorely lacking in references, and the bullet point section seems unnecessary. These points feel like they could collectively be described in 1-2 sentences of prose.
 * Bullet points (x)
 * (x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x)
 * ✅ --Teancum (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * For clarification all instances of posse should be singular and the first wikilinked. Right now it looks like posses, as in having ownership of something.
 * (x) However, to have ownership of something, it's "possess". "Posses" is just the plural for "posse". Confusing and annoying, but true.
 * ❌ This can still be reworked so all instances read as singular to avoid confusion. --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (x)
 * ✅ --Teancum (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * tech demo should be wikilinked to technology demonstration
 * (x)
 * ✅ --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no reference for the NASCAR endorsement in the Marketing section
 * (x)
 * ✅, though I removed one dubious reference --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Swimming is not an option, as the player character cannot swim" -- this is redundant, and the whole issue of whether they can swim seems largely irrelevant except to fans of the game. Unless there were some critical commentary on the need to be able to swim I see no need to have this included.
 * ✅ --Teancum (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Reception section is largely a quote farm, which is a potential WP:COPYVIO issue. It needs to be restructured to rely less on quotes. It also should be expanded and more organized, perhaps by type of commentary (gameplay, graphics, etc). Right now it's a jump from one media outlet to the next. There is also no need to list the score directly in the prose (with the exception of GameRankings and Metacritic scores) as it's already in the sidebar.
 * ❌ --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ½ (x)  I got rid of some quotes, but it probably still needs more fixing up?
 * JDC808  ♫  clarified that some one or two word quotes ("amazing", "stunning", etc.) can be used. Excluding these small quotes, there are only about three or four proper quotes left in the Reception section, which seems acceptable. --Rhain1999 (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still not organized per my above. It has no flow, but jumps from reviewer to reviewer with the same gist of "[x] said [y]" (even if it's not a direct quote). Take a look at X-Men Legends. Paragraphs are organized by such things as commentary on gameplay, multiplayer gameplay, graphics, sound, story, etc. That's what needs to happen here. --Teancum (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (x) I tried. I'm not sure how well I did. --Rhain1999 (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Authors should be cited for quotes and commentary. For example, IGN doesn't have a mouth, but the reviewer, Erik Brudvig does.
 * ½ (x) Obviously, it's a bit hard to go through every single reference and see who wrote them all really quickly, but I fixed all of the IGN ones. I'll go through the rest soon.
 * (x)


 * Some references are missing authors, access dates, date of publication, publisher, etc. Also, the publisher is not the website, but the owner of that site. For example, not ComputerAndVideoGames.com, but Computer And Video Games; not rockstargames.com, but Rockstar Games. Publishers should be wikilinked in the reference as well where possible (not a redlink).
 * (x)
 * ✅ --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In this instance WP:QUOTEs (either single ' or double ") should only be used when citing a direct quote or listing a song name. Singular words like 'honor' and "Dead-Eye" should have these things removed. This paragraph in particular has an issue :
 * At the 2010 Spike Video Game Awards, Red Dead Redemption won the "Game of the Year", "Best Song in a Game ("Far Away" by José González)", "Best Original Score" and "Best DLC (Undead Nightmare)" awards and some critics have called the game's music score among the most influential in the history of video games. ✅ ❌
 * To clarify, the only thing that should have quotes is "Far Away", as it's the title of a song. Only direct quotes from people and songs should double quotes (") in this case, and nothing should have single quotes ('). --Teancum (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In this instance "Game of the Year", "Best Original Score", etc should not be wikilinked
 * (x) I think I got them all.
 * ✅ There were a few stragglers left, but I got em'. --Teancum (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * References only go after punctuation (WP:CITEFOOT)
 * ✅ --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Whole numbers under 10 should be spelled out as words, except when in lists, tables or infoboxes (WP:NUMERAL)
 * ✅ --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Short, 1-2 sentence paragraphs or short sections should be merged with other paragraphs/sections if possible (WP:LAYOUT)
 * ✅ --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there nothing else on the soundtrack? It seems a great soundtrack like this would have more written about it. It might be a good idea to mention the awards for "Far Away" here briefly, or discuss any reviews for the soundtrack. Perhaps mention more on the composition, such as any unique instruments, famous artists who had input, etc. For instance, the idea of playing the trumpet against a drum is show in the YouTube reference provided.
 * ½ (x) You should have a look and tell me what you think should be added to it.
 * ✅ Good enough. I expanded on it. --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick comment One word quotes are acceptable if the word would not normally be used in these articles to describe things, e.g. fantastic, amazing, etc. -- JDC808  ♫  16:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Rhain1999 (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Dead web references should not be removed if they cannot be replaced, but an archived version is preferred if available (WP:DEADREF). These are the dead links, but odds are you can find reliable sources to replace most, if not all, of them.
 * (x/x/x)
 * ❌ There is still one more, ref #34 (GAME Australia). --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (x)
 * "*✅ --Teancum (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What makes the following reliable sources: RockstarWatch.net, GamerCenterOnline, Aeropause Games, Game Rant
 * (x)
 * Initial check says most things are good, but IMDB is not a reliable source since it relies on user-submitted content. I'd suggest using this custom Google search to find a replacement.
 * (x)
 * ✅ --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The N4G reference leads to an Examiner article, which is an unreliable source. Please replace it.
 * (x)
 * ✅ --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Nintendo Everything is used to cite a Game Informer score. Just cite the issue of the actual magazine (or online review) instead. No need for a source that cites another source.
 * (x)
 * ✅ --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * A random person's blog is not a reliable source. This should be removed.
 * (x/x)
 * ✅ --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

New issues April 4
 * I marked some tags for some unreferenced information.
 * (x)
 * "*✅ --Teancum (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In the lead "ranking it #3" should be "ranking it third"
 * (x)
 * "*✅ --Teancum (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer: Teancum (talk · contribs) 13:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I can't believe how much effort you're putting into all this! It's midnight here, so I'll fix a few now, but when I wake up, I'll be sure to do heaps more. :) Rhain1999 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Though in the above, please just reply to one of the points letting me know when you've worked on something. I'd like to use ✅ for my own confirmation after I've checked the updates. Thanks! --Teancum (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I might just put when I change something, and then the notes (if needed) after it. A yellow tick stands out much more than a bunch of notes mixed up with other notes! :P Rhain1999 (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So, as far as I'm concerned, I've fixed pretty much every problem that you've noted, but it still says, so I guess I just have to wait until you've noted every problem? :) Rhain1999 (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm still looking over the prose. The Reception section still needs reworking. It's still a quote farm and basically follows "[website] gave the game [score], [insert random quote]". It doesn't cover the aspects that critics liked/disliked and is borderline WP:COPYVIO due to the sheer amount of quotes and (some of) their sizes. --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

COMPLETE - The article review is now complete. Anything remaining still needs to be addressed, but otherwise we're finished. Great work on taking care of things so quickly! --Teancum (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I don't think there's too many above problems to be addressed, but I'll get to the remaining ones as soon as I can! Thank you for being so helpful and giving me such good feedback to use! This is a great game, and the article deserves to be equally as great. :) —Rhain1999 (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So, what does this mean for the article? Pass or fail? Or are there still some remaining problems? --Rhain1999 (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It'll be passed. I have a few nitpicks I'm cleaning up, but nothing I'll make you take care of. They're just things that are easy for me to do that will prep it if the article ever gets nominated to be a featured article. --Teancum (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your co-operation in this! You've been a wonderful reviewer, very nice, and explained all the problems really well. Thank you so much. :) --Rhain1999 (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your edits. It's still technically not a Good Article. I said I will pass it, but that doesn't mean it's ready yet. I'm still tweaking edits and cleaning. Also, the nominator should never pass their own article. --Teancum (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I should have taken a better look. Your work has been excellent, but the tweaks have been much more than just tweaks thus far. As this is my bad (and you've busted your chops to get so much done) I will make the final adjustments, grammar repairs, etc. When I'm done I'll promote it. --Teancum (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies for taking action without asking first, especially in this situation where action should not have been taken by me. Thank you for being so kind over this process of fixing up this article; it deserves to be a really good article and I'm happy that you've taken the time to help that happen. Also, if you need some help with some of the tweaks, or if you want me to fix some more things up, feel free to tell me. I may have worked hard on this article, but what I've done may seem pretty simple in the eyes of some, and I'm happy to help. Thank you. --Rhain1999 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC) :)

✅ --Teancum (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)