Talk:Saints Row: The Third downloadable content/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll get this one out of the way for you. Will leave some comments soon, feel free to come back to this review whenever you can. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar, ping czar ♔ 01:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Doing the review now Czar. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm changing the format of my reviews now (so it's less awkward):

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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 lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• "and considered Clones the best of the bunch" - why not use the full name, The Trouble with Clones?
• "It was originally announced as an April Fool's joke, but was confirmed and later spun into the sequel" - was it an April Fool's joke for Saints Row: The Third (hoax) or was it taken seriously?
• Was Enter the Dominatrix in The Full Package? Almost half of the section talks about it and Saints Row IV!
• "Genki Apocalypse has a jungle theme, including shark-laden waters" - how about shark-infested waters? (as a matter of curiosity, I didn't know sharks appeared in jungles!)
• "players continue the Saints Row: The Third story in a new arc about the Gangstas in Space film referenced in the original game" - what original game? The very first Saints Row or Saints Row: The Third?
• In the reception section of The Trouble with Clones, why are there no Aggregator's in the scores box?
• "Reviewers thought the pack was the best of the bunch" - somewhat un-encyclopaedia-like, how about best of the three?
• Although not a requirement for GA, are there any pictures/screenshots available for any of the three expansion packs? Like cover art or anything?
• There are no dead references, so this meets the GA criteria.

@Czar: this is a well written and very well-referenced article. You'll have to excuse my new format of the review (if you think it's any easier). Anyway I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days. Thanks! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar, I thought it was more appropriate to use shorthand, but it's only two instances so I'll spell it out. Not sure what you mean about the April Fool's joke. It came from the company and most people don't consider those announcements serious but then again no one really knows (such is the nature of jokes). I think the way it's written reflects that. Enter the Dominatrix was announced as for SR3 but was delayed. I thought The Full Package section was the most appropriate placement, unless you have an idea for a better title. Re: sharks in jungles—me neither. If I didn't use an aggregator it was likely because there were not enough scores to aggregate. I didn't feel that the cover art helped the article, especially since I didn't have much of a fair use rationale for their inclusion—I can look for better images, though. I think I got everything else. Thanks for the review! czar ♔ 17:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar, added an image czar ♔ 18:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for speedily clarifying those concerns, Czar! I have to apologise for my lack of understanding about Saints Row content (I've never played any of the games) but no matter, it appears that the whole article clearly meets the GA critiera now. All the references and citations are in the correct places, there is no jargon, the prose is clear and well-written and the article feels less bare now there is a image! Well done for the extra work, I'll promote this one. Regards ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)