Talk:South Park: The Stick of Truth/GA1

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

Nominator: Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 12:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll take it. Expect my comments up by tomorrow. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 12:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Overall, the article looks great, but there's a few things to note here and there.


 * Lead
 * Looks great. My only suggestion for if you wanted FA-quality prose would be to rework the first sentence of the last paragraph, which comes across as purple prose. Not a concern for a GA.
 * I'm not really familiar with Purple Prose, I read the article and have tried to rework the sentence accordingly. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Gameplay
 * "2D-like" needs a little more explanation. I'm familiar with 2.5D, but not "2D-like".
 * Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "the Fighter, Thief, and Mage (which represent standard fantasy types), and the Jew" - double usage of the serial comma makes the sentence a little confusing.
 * I changed this, hopefully it works now.
 * "and farts that, when combined with an exposed flame, triggers" - lose the letter "s" in "triggers".
 * Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "cheesy poofs" should be written either with capital letters or with quotation marks.
 * Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "or increase physical attributes" - this is the first time you've introduced "physical attributes" but they haven't been explained.
 * I've moved/rewritten this and linked to the appropriate article. Hopefully this is better. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Synopsis
 * You can't conclude Mr. Slave a "sexual deviant" without sourcing it. Straying into OR territory to me. You can add a source there to support it, but why not just call him "Mr. Garrison's boyfriend" or something?
 * He's no longer Mr Garrisons boyfriend, he is Big Gay Al's boyfriend, added a sourced description of him. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More of a query than a concern; having never played the game myself, can you explain why the protagonist is referred to as "The New Kid" in Gameplay but "Douchebag" in Plot?
 * He's introduced as the New Kid and for the sake of context it made more sense to me to refer to him as such, since it is only explained that he is given the name "Douchebag" in the context of the plot section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Development
 * "believing that the controversial concept" - why is it "controversial"?
 * I rephrased it to "believing that a game based on the controversial television show would struggle to receive financial", is that better? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "worth more if it's assets" → "its assets".
 * Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is being quoted in the quote box at the beginning of Design?
 * Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Reception
 * I'd suggest brushing up on the Template:Video game reviews' guidelines. GameRankings scores should be rounded to two digits of precision. 15 review scores is far too many; 5-6 is most desired but I'd happily settle for ten or less.
 * Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Any reason that you're not linking game review sites in the prose? You're perfectly allowed to (and I'd suggest doing so).
 * Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Combat received a more polarising response" - if you're using American English, you need to spell it "polarizing".
 * Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Great job overall. I'll be checking over sources and such while you work through my comments. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 11:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sequel
 * It's quite undesirable to have such a short section; given that the only thing you have is that Parker and Stone were 'interested' in making a sequel, this could probably just go in South Park instead. However I'm not requiring that you do so and I'll pass the article regardless.
 * I get what you're saying but for now I'd prefer to keep it if possible, I'm hoping the news will come sooner than later. I might look at moving it into another section, but it's hard. At Dishonored the talk of sequel was directly related to sales so I was able to put it in the sales section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Images
 * File:Trey Parker Matt Stone 2007.jpg is free content
 * File:SouthParkTheStickOfTruth.jpg, File:SouthParkTheStickofTruth-GameplayBattle.jpeg and File:South Park The Stick of Truth Euro Censor.jpg each have sufficient fair use rationales and enhance the reader's understanding of the subject at hand. I would have suggested reducing File:SouthParkTheStickofTruth-GameplayBattle.jpeg, although that could potentially diminish the readability of the on-screen HUD and prompts.


 * Sources
 * Wasn't familiar with "Topless Gamer" however it looks acceptable to me. Den of Geek didn't seem appropriate, but a background check on Chris Longo makes me confident that he's an experienced reporter and perfectly okay to use.

Result
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A great article. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 02:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly CR4ZE for the prompt review and passing it! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A great article. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 02:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly CR4ZE for the prompt review and passing it! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A great article. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 02:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly CR4ZE for the prompt review and passing it! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)