Talk:The Last of Us/GA1

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

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 13:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Still new in doing article review so I hope I didn't miss anything important or write something useless. Also, please forgive me if I have made some mistakes. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead

 * an updated version, The Last of Us Remastered, was released for the PlayStation 4 on July 29, 2014 - Here it does not represent a worldwide view.
 * players use firearms, improvised weapons and stealth to defend against hostile humans and zombie-like creatures. Stealth need to be wiklinked.

Body

 * Players traverse post-apocalyptic environments, using firearms, improvised weapons and stealth to defend against hostile human and zombie-like creatures infected by a mutated strain of the Cordyceps fungus. - I think it need to be reword slightly since it is almost identical to the lead
 * A dynamic cover system is also present, in which players crouch behind obstacles to gain a tactical advantage during combat - Any explanations on why the cover system is dynamic?
 * The game's online multiplayer allows up to eight players to engage in both co-operative and competitive gameplay in recreations of multiple single-player settings. - It personally think that "co-operative" only need to mention when a standalone co-op mode is included.
 * No major problems is found in the plot section
 * The development section is very comprehensive. The development of the game's art, engine, story, music, sound, concept are all there. Well done!
 * Information about The Last of Us: American Dreams shouldn't be in the development section in my opinion. It should be mentioned somewhere in the adaptations section.
 * I think that information about the release dates, delay, additional content and The Last of Us Remastered can be split to a new section called "Release"
 * There is no point having The Last of Us: Left Behind wikilinked.
 * Survivalist Weapon Bundle added four new weapons. I assume this bundle also need to be italicized
 * ...which assigns a normalized rating in the 0–100 range... - I don't think this part is necessary
 * Richard Mitchell of Joystiq found that the game's narrative improved the character relationships.. Joystiq is not included in the review template.
 * Electronic Gaming Monthly and Famitsu isn't used anywhere besides the template. Since the template is used to support the text it should be removed.
 * PlayStation Official Magazine'​s David Meikleham found that the game's pacing contributed to the improvement of the story - Could have some very very brief explanation on how the pacing of this game contributed to the story.
 * while Kelly of Computer and Video Games enjoyed the variety in approaching them Them - who?
 * Destructoid's Sterling felt that game was visually impressive, but that technical issues left a negative impact on the visuals - Can be slightly expanded on what technical issues he had encountered.
 * Kelly of Computer and Video Games found that the environmental audio impacted gameplay - Positively or negatively?
 * That sales section is impressive. However, you can also wiklink all those nations mentioned.
 * The award section is a bit difficult to read because of all those citations.
 * they both won the award from BAFTA - I assume not everybody know what BAFTA, so it should be wikilinked again, or add (BAFTA) next to the British Academy Video Games Awards, in the first paragraph of the award section.
 * GameTrailers and Giant Bomb was mentioned twice in the best story part.

Image

 * The owner of the image File:Video Game Cover - The Last of Us.jpg should be Sony Computer Entertainment instead of Naughty Dog.
 * In File:Bruce Straley PAX Prime 2014.jpg. I think the word "appointed" will be better than "chosen"
 * The Non-free rationale template for File:The Last of Us visuals.jpg needs some cleanup.

Review
It is a very comprehensive and well-written article. I personally is impressed. Not much problems can be found besides those minor issues. So, here is the review:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I am going to put this on hold. When all these extremely small and minor issues are addressed. The article should be good to go. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 y:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Thanks for your review, ! I've gone through and fixed most of your concerns, though I'd like to address some things:
 * I'm not really sure how to further explain the dynamic cover system; I believed that the rest of the sentence already did so, but I must be wrong.
 * I understand why you'd like to create a "Release" section, but is there any real need to? Personally, I like it without it (like on Grand Theft Auto V), though I'll be happy to create it if you feel it's necessary.
 * I'm very close to nearing completion on creating an article for The Last of Us: Left Behind, which is why it is wiki-linked (to save myself going through and wiki-linking it afterwards), though I can remove this if it's easier.
 * If you're referring to me wiki-linking all of the nations in the "Sales" section (such as "France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden..."), then I'm not sure if that's necessary. I haven't seen anything similar before on Wikipedia.
 * I realise the "Awards" section looks a bit crowded with the citations, but we can't really do anything about that.
 * There are no guidelines stating that citations are required to be placed at the end of a sentence; I believe all citations are placed appropriately throughout the article, with each fact accompanied by a suitable reference.
 * I've gone through and replaced some of the PlayStation Blog references, but some are very difficult to find suitable replacements for.
 * If you have any further concerns, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks! -- Rhain1999  (talk to me) 07:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Great! Then I think the article is good to go! The Last of Us promoted to AdrianGamer (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)