Talk:Theme Hospital/GA2

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

Reviewer: Manfred von Karma (talk · contribs) 08:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! My name is Manfred von Karma, and I will be reviewing the article Theme Hospital. To clarify, the version of Theme Hospital I am reviewing is the revision as of April 4th, 2017 at 11:01 by Shaddim. This review is a criteria-by-criteria evaluation of the article.

Also, a shout-out is deserved to every single positive contributor to this page. Special thanks here to Adam9007.

Immediate failures test
From what I can see here, the article does not immediately fail. It is feasibly nominated, does not contain copyrighted material, does not have outstanding editor's notes that need to be fulfilled and the article lacks constant vandalism.

Theme Hospital Vs. Stature of writing (Cr1)
Here are some gripes I have with the writing's grammar and prose and things of the like: Although these issues are pretty minor, I'm still going to consider this Criteria a failure until it's fixed.
 * The idea of the reputation mechanic in ->Gameplay is not introduced properly
 * The idea of the loan mechanic in ->Gameplay is introduced in a small, singular sentence and clogs up the general flow
 * The third paragraph of ->Gameplay has a lot of information but is presented in a fashion where there are a series of short sentences in which are unrelated to each other -- clogs general flow

Theme Hospital Vs. Verifiability of writing (Cr2)
All ideas presented here are fact. There is no evidence of original research here. My reference test passed for no unreliable or made-up sources. This criteria is passed with flying colours.

Theme Hospital Vs. Coverage of writing (Cr3)
The article covers all the integral mechanics of Theme Hospital we know and love, without being overly complicated about things. Development, reception sections are great. The inclusion of Molyneux was good. Pass.

Theme Hospital Vs. Position of writing (Cr4)
The position of the article is 100% neutral. Pass.

Theme Hospital Vs. Stability of writing (Cr5)
There is zero evidence of any vandalism and I don't foresee any future vandalism occurring on an article such as this.

Theme Hospital Vs. Visual components of writing (Cr6)
More than a measly two images are required. Some image suggestions are: If such images are unfindable, contact me and I will try to retrieve them myself. The existing images are satisfactory. The box art provided is the most widespread and therefore the most exceptional example.
 * Pictures of developers or early/demo screenshots in ->Development
 * Another gameplay screenshot in ->Gameplay

Issue summary
Small issues with Gameplay section's prose and sentence flow. More image components are required.

Final verdict
There are few issues with this article, and thus, this article will be put on hold for seven-ish days. On the next Saturday/Sunday, the article will get a short re-evaluation. If no changes are made, the article will be swiftly denied of GA status.

If you wish to discuss this, request me to go into more detail, or just have a general inquiry, please put your concerns on my talk page. You'll probably get a response within a day or two.

Manfred (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Re-evalutaion: The issues I had with Cr1 have been fixed and the issues I had with Cr6 have been made redundant. I see no reason why not to give this article the status of a Good Article. The GA process usually takes between five to ten minutes. Manfred (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)