Talk:Scribblenauts (video game)/GA1

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

I am nominating Scribblenauts because this artcile is of B-Class, 63 links and has importance on the 5th Cell-related articles. This shall be a great addition to the collectons of Good Articles. Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Ihave permission from Masem.
 * I'd like to see any new info added if possible. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Beginning of Reviews
I am voting to put this on hold while the main editors make a few changes. The reception sectin seems like it could be split into four paragraphs, each focusing on a certain aspect of reviews (eg reviewers comments on gameplay, comments on plot, etc.) Next, I would advise adding a plot section, even if it is relatively brief. Introduce the character, goal, mention the levels the player progresses through (not in bulleted or extreme level-by-level detail, however). Seeing how this game is a prominent example of emergent gameplay, a section or subsection (most likely in the gameplay section) that is dedicated entirely to this aspect and its legacy/inspirations in the video game industry. Finally, you could expand the promotion section to include more ways the creators promoted the game (eg, the X-Play show devoted to a Scribblenauts preview.)So, I am going to put this on hold so that the editors may consider these and give this time to improve before nominating it again. Good work though, it is a well-written article with some great potential. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can solve all those except for the "plot" section as many sources say that there isn't a plot or some sort of continuity in the game, and I couldn't find it either. The only thing that'll be close to explaining the polt is that it was originally Maxwell using his powers to recover lost stars from planets, but this was scrapped even so, there isn't a way to back it up, so the plot can't happen. Secret Saturdays (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments - I would agree that this isn't quite up to GA snuff just yet. The content is there, but several splits need to be made. The Gameplay, Development and Release sections are immediately daunting to the reader, with multiple paragraphs over ten lines. It's not so much the actual phrasing or copy editing - but more that the article is not visually appealing to read. I suggest further splitting of the Development and possibly Gameplay sections into sub-sections, and general minor trimming of the Release section to further appeal to the reader. The release section might also do with a bit of reorganizing, with sales and aggregate scores in the first paragraph (and possibly a few "highlight quotes"), then positive remarks in the second, followed by criticisms in the the third. Maybe it's just my taste as well, but overall the section goes into a bit too much detail for the reader - not a ton of detail too much, just a hint-so, which, going back to paragraph size, might deter the reader from reading a section. A few references also have redlinks and bare URLs which would need to be updated prior to passing. --Teancum (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Editorial suggestion summary
 * Reception needs reorganizing, with aggregates and sales in one paragraph, positive comments in another, negative in another, etc. It also seems rather long an daunting to the reader.  Consider using only what is necessary to convey the points.
 * Several paragraphs are over 10 lines, which becomes daunting to a reader. Consider splitting or trimming them
 * The Development section may be better served with a sub-category on the engine itself. While much of the content has to do with the engine, this breaks up the article into a general Development paragraph (or two) then the Engine section, then Promotion, which gives the reader a break.
 * Images need alt text per WP:ALT
 * A few references need updating to the template.  And redlinks in refs should be removed unless there is reason to create an article for that particular author/publisher.
 * If a fact is mentioned elsewhere, it shouldn't me mentioned in the article lead, per WP:LEADCITE. All three lead references are referenced elsewhere.

One month should be plenty for editors to update the article. It will be reassessed and a verdict given at that time. --Teancum (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - A third opinion probably isn't needed, but I'd like to let you all know that I've read over the review and agree that the article needs to be worked on a bit more before GA.  The fixes seem reasonable and a month is a generous time frame.  As far as needing  a plot section; it probably doesn't.  The Wikiproject's manual of style specifies that if the plot is simple enough it can be combined with the gameplay section.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 12:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Recommendation
Per my comments and User:Kraftlos this can probably be closed as failed. Minor restructures have been made, but the article still needs lots of work. I'd recommend this article get renom'd later on when its had some updates. --Teancum (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Plenty of time has been given and still no massive changes have been made. I'm going to close this GAN and hopefully the editor will spend some time to improve it and renominate it at a later time. Apologies, Ground  Z3R0   002  23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)