Talk:Titanfall (video game)/GA1

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 18:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A review will be forthcoming tonight or tomorrow. Ping me if I'm late :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to it czar ♔  18:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@: ping czar ♔  19:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

, ping czar ♔  13:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments

Sorry for the delays. So overall a good start. Here's my comments by criterion:

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Prose
 * You really shouldn't need references in the lead; I'd rethink the use of straight-up quotations as well in a summary.
 * The text is occasionally poorly oragnized or presented, i.e. through comma splices (Pilots use traditional customizable weapons, ten in total, including a semi-automatic shotgun, machine guns, assault rifles, sniper rifles, and the Smart Pistol Mk5, which locks onto multiple targets before firing multiple shots) I don't think that alone is enough to fail by GA standards.
 * The organization of the reception section seems a bit off to me. It starts out with general aggregated opinions, but then starts giving individual critics' opinions on differing subjects; for example the third paragraph starts by discussing controls, but then talks about the smart pistol and then goes to maps. Cleaning up and honing the topics of these paragraphs would help greatly with its flow.
 * References
 * Yay! Archived references! Not an issue, just makes me happy!
 * Reading through the notes, I think they should either be combined in the main prose or axed on an individual basis. Some of it seemed rather essential to the points being articulated, rather than non-trivial asides.
 * Did spotchecks of statements attributed to refs 9, 15, 24, 53, and 70 and saw no issues that would prompt further review. Reliability of sources doesn't seem to be an issue.
 * Coverage
 * No issues here. Gameplay, plot (such as there is), development, marketing and reception covered adequately. Not sure, but as it's sort of a "developing story" any updates on the lack of sales info/comments on buzz?
 * Neutrality/Stability -- not an issue.
 * Images
 * File:Titanfall screenshot.png could use greater elaboration in its fair use rationale as to what aspects it's illustrating and why it is thus essential.
 * Other images look good, I double-checked the OTRS tickets and things look sound; the copyrightable aspects of the images seem minor enough and not the main focus so it shouldn't be an issue with the licenses.

, cool. Thanks. The refs in the lede are for WP:CITELEAD: the two quotations needed direct citations, and the last sentence was challenged, which is why I added the cites as confirmation/backup. The reception was written to frontload the common opinions together and then to use the direct quotes to elaborate on more specific points (largely not those common opinions). I can reorganize it if necessary, but the intention wasn't to signpost each paragraph with a common concern and then to elaborate within the paragraph (otherwise there wouldn't be room for the breadth of issues raised). I felt the notes were fine but I merged all but two. I have some other stuff to add for FA standards but there hasn't been a hard update on sales other than what's already in the article. Everything else should be addressed. Let me know what you think? czar ♔  02:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be away until around the 8th so if I do not respond, that is why. Please give me ample time to address things past then, if anything needs addressing for the GA standard. czar ♔  21:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As an avid Titanfall player I'll sign myself up to keep track of progress while you're away. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 15:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in the middle of an apartment move + awkward wait for internet service but I'll still be checking on/working on this as I have time. Expect a result by the end of this week, and thanks for the patience. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good—I'm back when you are czar ♔  17:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok I think this probably meets GA criteria as it stands. I'd suggest getting a copyedit as next steps. Good job. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)