Talk:Octogeddon/GA1

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

Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) 12:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article. Toa Nidhiki05 12:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Article has images that meet policy and add to the page’s quality.
• Coverage is broad and specific when need be.
• Page is very stable; no edit wars on the page.
• Article has a reference section and citations to reliable sources; sources are of generally excellent quality. Content isn’t plagiarized and citations are used, not original research.

Prose

• Change "Days after lay-off" to "Days after he was laid off".

• Done

• Remove quotation marks around "All Yes Good"

• Done

• Remove the comma after "video game composer"

• Done

• I would convert "with Walker saying that Octogeddon was "not the sure-fire hit that Plants vs. Zombies once was,"[3] and Carter saying that Octogeddon did not have the replay value that Plants vs. Zombies.[2]" into a separate sentence rather than having a semicolon separating it off. It's already quite long, so this would make it a bit easier to read.

• Done

• Change "was praised" to "were praised"

• Done

• Wikilink permadeath; perhaps also clarify this in the gameplay section

• Done

• Change "octopus, Octogeddon, himself" to just "Octogeddon himself"

• Done

• Change "Unfortunately" to "However"

• Done

Citations

• Link IGN in citation 6

• Done

• Link Kotaku in citation 7

• Done

• Link Gamasutra in citation 10

• Done

• Link Nintendo in citation 19

• Done

Putting this on hold until the minor prose and citation issues are fixed. Other than that, this is about as good of an article as you can get for an indie game imo. Once these issues are addressed, article should be good to pass. Toa Nidhiki05 17:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Toa Nidhiki05: I am done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All issues resolved, so this passes. Great work! Toa Nidhiki05 19:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: