Talk:The Elder Scrolls III: Tribunal/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Night Watch (talk · contribs) 20:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this one. I haven't played any Elder Scrolls games before Skyrim, so bear with if my knowledge is a little rusty. I'll try to have some comments up by Thursday or Friday at the latest. The Night Watch    (talk)   20:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, no worries at all. Unfamiliarity with the Elder Scrolls series is probably appropriate, as the article leans a little heavily on development information which may not be of interest to a general audience. Appreciate any thoughts or suggestions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, here are my comments: This is what I've got so far  The Night Watch     (talk)   00:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The FUR for the cover image needs a bit of a boost. Perhaps Non-free use rationale video game cover could be of some help ✅
 * Earwig's does not turn up any copyvio, quotes appear to be used properly
 * I don't think you need to have two citations in the lead when the content is already cited in the body. ✅
 * I also think you can just say quality of life improvements (without "minor") to tighten the prose a small bit. ✅
 * I suggest changing "The main addition to Tribunal is the inclusion of a city, Mournhold" to "The main addition to Tribunal is the city of Mournhold" Also, there is a second wikilink to Morrowind in the first paragraph of gameplay, and a second link to Bethesda Softworks in the lead section. ✅
 * Not very important to the GAR, but are there any synonyms to the word "includes" that can be added? It seems like that word is used a lot in the gameplay section. ✅
 * Any reason why GamersPulse, The Adrenaline Vault, Imperial Library, and RPG Radar are reliable sources? Aside from that, the rest appear to be reliable per WP:VG/S and their own Wikipedia articles.
 * I agree each of the sources above are not considered reliable under WP:VG/S and would not be useful for notability or providing evidence for core information about the game. Each citation is used as it is an interview and functions as a primary source for what developers have said about creating the expansion. I think they could certainly be relied upon a little less, especially the Imperial Library website, but I don't see any harm in them as their purpose is mostly to supplement development information.
 * That's understandable, so I'd say the source review is a pass
 * Perhaps "The Tribunal questline was conceived of as being accessible to all players irrespective of level or status" could be reworded to "The Tribunal questline intended to be be accessible to all players irrespective of level or status" ✅
 * Found another duplicate wikilink for Todd Howard. I suggest going over the entire article to make sure there are no more of these wikilinks and MOS:REPEATLINK is adequately complied with. There’s a particular problem with them in reception ✅
 * The development section relies a lot on quotes that could easily be paraphrased. With so much of the content being quoted to others, this is probably the biggest hurdle towards GA status. I would suggest paraphrasing at least some of these quotes as it could help the paragraphs read better.
 * Remove "game" from "Tribunal was generally well received by game reviewers" to tighten the prose. ✅
 * Reception has a lot of quotes that could be paraphrased, same case with development here. ✅
 * A spot-check for 5 random sources will be held once these above issues are addressed.


 * Thanks, appreciate your feedback. I will take a look into editing the article with the key takeaway being that quotes and phrasing could be paraphrased better and shortened to meet summary style, and being mindful of repetition of wikilinks. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've made most of the changes and will do a re-read and final edit soon, but the above feedback should be integrated into the article. The amount of quotes and wikilinks is far less! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good work, the article is looking to be in great shape at the moment. When you're done, I'll do the spot-check and give a final look.  The Night Watch     (talk)   06:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, other than some tinkering, looks good.
 * a ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Spot-checked sources 2, 4, 16, 24, 26. Citation 2 appears to not have the information cited in the second paragraph of gameplay, so I would suggest finding replacement sources. Others look good, and after replacing that source the article can be passed.  The Night Watch     (talk)   03:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Interesting, none of the reviews mention the Museum of Artifacts in the expansion. I've gone down the route of citing the strategy guide as a primary source - it's not ideal but the developer is the publisher of the guide. Let me know if I've missed anything. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, passed. Good work!  The Night Watch     (talk)   05:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)