GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 16:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


First comments

I'll have a more detailed look at the article by the end of this week. I have found some sources for development section that are not currently used in the article. They may be useful.

 Done
 Done
I see nothing of vital importance to add from it.
This source is used for the claim of the Catcher in the Rye influence.
The video interview is cited in the development section as part of this source.
The only material I've found is this—"We would love to have the opportunity to do another season". It goes on to say that it would involve a new cast. (I'm saving that for when the second season is actually greenlit.) Recently, there were articles claiming season 2 was confirmed, but that resulted from a mistranslation. Cognissonance (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AdrianGamer (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review

 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Not done
 Not done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
On the talk page you will find the arguments I put forth against the Episodes table; basically, the table was removed because the content of the rest of the article made it obsolete.
The table is used to highlight the game's episodic format. In my opinion, it is still needed. The table can present information better than prose sometimes, especially for information about dates. I believe that if you put all dates information in prose (like the second paragraph of the release section) it would be very confusing for readers to follow.
 Done (using the wikicodes for the table that was removed, not the ones from Tales of Monkey Island—I hope that's okay)
The physical release should be on there as well, but I don't know how to present the dates without citing them with each episode, which would falsely imply that the physical copies will launch episodically. Do you know how to put the physical release dates in the middle right of the table? Cognissonance (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be. It belongs to the more general "release" section. Now that you have a table, I suggest to trim the second paragraph of the release section. It is now repeating the dates mentioned in the table.
 Done Cognissonance (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done Cognissonance (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having followed Indiewire's coverage for years, I've found it to be extremely reliable. I couldn't find a replacement for The Game Fanatics, but am willing to remove the source and rewrite information that relies upon it (specificities like "lighting" and "depth of field") if you insist.
 Done Cognissonance (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

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 y:
  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:

Overall it is a very comprehensive article, supported by a lot of reliable sources. Points marked with [Optional] means that it is outside of the GA scope, even though I believe that they may make the article more detailed. You have done an amazing work on the article, and it will most likely be promoted after you have fixed all the issues. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since all the issues had been addressed the article is good to go. Life is Strange is now a . Congratulations! AdrianGamer (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]