Talk:Tomb Raider (2013 video game)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cabe6403 (talk · contribs) 14:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I will take this. Expect some initial comments within a day or so Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Prose is well written and I find no issues with it	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Other than a few minor MoS things I've highlighted in the discussion area, nothing major needing work	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	All references up to scratch	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	No issues here	Pass
(c) (original research)	All cited	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Everything seems there	Pass
(b) (focused)	The plot section is, perhaps, a bit lengthy but not drastically so. The rest of the article is great	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Criticism and praise given appropriate sections, no bias evident	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No evidence of content disputes	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Both images correctly tagged	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)		Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Congradulations on a well written article. It was a pleasure to review with only trivial issues I raised below. An easy addition to the GA articles. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 08:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

I'm on my initial read through and I notice there is a number of citations in the lead. Per WP:CITELEAD this is permitted but not encouraged as to avoid redundant citations. For example, the sales figures are cited in the lead and later in the article so citing in the lead is unnecessary. Could you please remove any redundant citations in the lead. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have done this. The citations for sales figures and general reception have been removed, but I have left in the citations that seemed to be part of the lead or key to it: ie, the hype the game got prior to release, the fact that this was a total reboot of the series. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks Y Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel there should be a bit more in the way of blue links, especially for first time use of terms that some may be unfamiliar with. For example, "The game also incorporates RPG elements: as the player progresses through the..." RPG should be piped to Role-playing video game or "Portuguese traders, United States Marines and a Japanese" where US marines could be linked. Again, these aren't strictly necessary but I feel it'd better the article Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Added the links, can't see anything else, but if you want to point anything out, feel free. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This article looks very good and I can find pretty much no issues with it. All I have remaining to do is check the sourcing. If that is to the same standard as the rest of the article then I anticipate an easy pass. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)