Talk:TumbleSeed/GA1

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

Reviewer: TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs) 17:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

GA review
Hello, I'm TheJoebro64 and I will be reviewing this article! Thanks to the GA nominator, Czar and all those who have contributed positively to this article. Please keep in mind that this is my first GA submission I'm reviewing, so correct me if I'm doing anything wrong. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Review part 1

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The article is well written; however, the lead is short and should be expanded upon.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * The article contains citations that are relevant and considered reliable for the coverage of video games. Copyright violations and plagiarism are definitely not of concern.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * No concerns here. Everything is perfectly phrased and the article gives an accurate overview of the game.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No weasel words, or any bias present. This is a "fair and balanced" (quote Fox News) presentation of the game.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * In reviewing the article edit history, I did notice a few reverts, but overall there were no edit wars in which reverts went over and over and over and over. Passes this criteria.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Well, there are no images; however, I'd say that this article could use some cover art (or a logo) and a screenshot of gameplay. I'm adding "???" this criteria for that reason (failing it would be to strong).
 * 1) Overall: The article is well written and is broad in its coverage. I think you did a great job on this, especially for such a new game. However, there are some concerns which I have posted below. I'm placing this on hold until these issues are addressed. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * As stated above, the lead should be expanded. This shouldn't be to hard, but I'd look to other FAs and GAs (such as Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels) and re-write the lead here to match.
 * I'd add a logo or box art to the infobox (preferably this one).
 * Similar to the infobox, I'd add a screenshot of gameplay to the "gameplay" section to provide visual aid to the average reader.
 * "Post-release" should be added as a sub-section of "development", as it is a part of the development cycle and not really its own information.

~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I thought that the lede adequately summarizes the main points of the article (which is the point, not the length). What aspects do you feel are not covered in the lede? We usually get free use media from Wohlwend, which I'd still expect for when his workload lightens. I separated the post-release because I felt it was sufficiently distinct from the development as a reaction to the Reception rather than a continuation of the Development process. I also didn't think it would make sense chronologically to introduce the response to the Reception before the Reception itself. czar  19:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I understand the post-release section being where it is and the lead does summarize the most important points of the article. I'll look over the article once more before I pass this nomination. (I also wanted to say I'm a fan of your work, Czar - I'm sorry we got off on the wrong hand at The Lost Levels.) ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, nice of you to say and no hard feelings on this end :) Thanks again for taking the time to review czar  20:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Re-review
Just finished re-reviewing and I am convinced that it meets the GA criteria. With a bit of work, this could possibly make it to FA. Great job! ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail: