GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 03:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Link is sooooooooooooooooo hot!![hyperbole] <3 <3 <3 TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 03:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have time to review this article now. Yay me! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 03:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna pass this GA review over to @Vrxces. I have to go somewhere, and unfortunately I have to sleep early. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 03:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies @Dcdiehardfan: and @The Night Watch: I was not aware this was handed to me, although I note the nominator reached out, did ask and I replied, perhaps too ambiguously. I do not have the capacity to complete a GAN of an article of this complexity and re-read and re-evaluate the sourcing. However, I don't want to hold it up further. If you are comfortable with the proposed approach that I complete the review on the basis that TTWO has performed a review, and provided significant comments, I'm happy to pass provided the comments have largely been actioned and addressed. On a very cursory look I would say the only additional conspicuous fix is that the review template could be condensed to ten items as is the norm, particularly omitting those reviews that are not mentioned in the article. Let me know if this is a fair direction to close the GAN in a timely manner. VRXCES (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Vrxces. I think TTWO has provided a good amount of comments and I think it would be fair to close the review since most of them have been actioned. I have made the changes to the review template that you requested. If you notice anything else you can post about it here, though I'm taking a self-mandated break from enwiki, and I probably won't be readily around to address anything else. Dcdiehardfan might be able to action any further comments you have if he is not busy. The Night Watch (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, given this I'm happy to pass. Thanks to @TrademarkedTWOrantula: for undertaking the original review. VRXCES (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead section adequately summarizes article. Fiction is out-of-universe. List incorporation policy does not apply.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. No bare URLs spotted. Reference section easy to spot.
2b. 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). The article uses some sources considered to be situational per WP:VG/S. However, they are rarely ever used. There are way more reliable sources than situational sources.
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. According to the Earwig report, the top result is a Discord page. Most of the pages, if not all, are reported as a false positive; game names are highlighted in red.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The gameplay, plot, development, and reception are covered - material that is adequate for a video game article.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article stays focused.
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. No recent edit wars. Development is at a steady pace.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Cover art and gameplay(?) screenshot have a valid non-free use rationale. Image of Aonuma is correctly licensed.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The gameplay screenshot gives a clear visual on what a crucial part of the gameplay looks like. Obviously, the cover art is relevant for a video game article, but I have mixed feeling about using the Aonuma image in the development section.
7. Overall assessment.

Quickfail?[edit]

Lead[edit]

Done
Done
Done
Took that part out of the lead, the gameplay section goes into better detail I think. I also reworded the "Rune" part to be more in line with how the BOTW article refers to the powers as those of the Sheikah Slate, not as runes.
Done
The source says that they struggled but didn't really go into detail on how, just that they struggled at differentiating the two games while they were developing TOTK.
Done
Done
Done
Done

TrademarkedTWOrantula, replied to your comments. The Night Watch (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Night Watch: I have added new comments for gameplay and development. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 00:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Night Watch I helped you out on some of the stuff below as marked. Feel free to let me know if there are any issues and good luck on getting the article to GA! -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping ^_^ TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 03:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to! There was some stuff that I feel I couldn't address but it should be easy for the OP to do so I think. This is actually a game I really like, so I'm honored to have contributed to the GAR. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay[edit]

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned in the previous game as a core aspect of gameplay, so I decided to mention it again to reiterate how it is similar to its predecessor.
Changed to "Region"
minus Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular way how I could word this?
minus Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Not OP, but I assume it's a scare quote. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed
minus Replaced -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some surfaces that are impossible to pass through.
minus Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Development[edit]

Not specified in the cited articles but I assume in either 2018 or 2017.
In the article it probably wouldn't be appropriate, but yes it is a common acronym for the game.
 Comment: I just reworded a bit of the prose all around -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I've seen it as a convention across Wiki articles for media projects in general, and I practice it too. I removed it to remain consistency. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done I changed the syntax to more closely align with the suggestion, but omitted the "same world" part as I'm not sure what that meant -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Wikilinked open world since that had an article -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I'm confused what the comment is alluding to, I altered the syntax a bit, is it good? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should've been more clearer. There's a semicolon and the letter is capitalized. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 03:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I believe it should be fixed by now. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
minus Replaced -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
minus Replaced -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
minus Replaced -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded again. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 04:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY
minus Replaced Used "vast", would that work? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It works. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 21:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed I went ahead and revised the prose to cut down the amount of "said" -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded some. Does this work?
Green tickY -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Reworded that entire content to make it more objective -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Ditto -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are mentioned in gameplay, they are the things that can be used to make vehicles.
 Comment: Changed the overall diction -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY I used the word exploit -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Another scare quote, I think -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed
 Fixed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Probably another scare quote, not sure if it has an actual meaning in-game -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed again
minus Replaced I used element -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done Eliminating "by" for brevity -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really clear, so removing
Green tickY -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY And "completed" -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: By release para, are you referring to the last para in Development? If so, I personally like where Sales is at, as that information does tend to be in the Reception section of articles. On this tangent, I also did some edits to better section the Reception section. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

Note: It has been a while since I've played any Zelda games (or video games in general D:). Expect me to get nothing.

minus Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Changed the syntax so it's "a poisonous substance called gloom"
minus Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
minus Replaced -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
minus Replaced -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I definitely agree, love that phrase haha -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Good word choice imo -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I believed it's implying the sages once owned secret stones as a power artifacts in the past, and they are now giving it to Link. Leaving unchanged as I'm unsure and deferring it to OP. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Tautologies, amirite haha -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified that they are items
 Done I think the diction is a bit awkward but is acceptable for now, I also wikilinked to time travel in fiction.
 Comment: I believe that's what's implied in the prose, that Zelda time travelled into the past and met Rauru and Sonia,. not sure who's "he" referring to. I'll clean up the prose a bit here to further clarify these events occured in Zelda's timeframe. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Was Link who you were alluding to above? I'll leave my edits there but defer it to the OP to finish. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I thought it was Link. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 03:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
minus Replaced -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done A bit of altering diction for less "and". -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address these comments shortly. Been busy recently so it may take me some time to respond. The Night Watch (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Night Watch I've went ahead and already addressed most of the simple prose stuff above, marked as above. Anything that is marked  Comment: or blank is what I deferred to you, as I'm not as familiar with the plot and trust you to clarify those things. I think the big issues is with the clarity regarding the time travel part and other plot elements. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again @Dcdiehardfan, I'll look at the comments again sometime tomorrow. The Night Watch (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

 Comment: I tried to rearrange some stuff, OP should definitely take a look and revise as needed. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TrademarkedTWOrantula I believe that Dcdiehardfan and I have addressed your comments. Sorry for the long delay. The Night Watch (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TrademarkedTWOrantula just a nudge :) The Night Watch (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I'll try to finish this review as soon as possible (I'll be going somewhere). @Dcdiehardfan: Hope you're ready for my barrage of comments. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 01:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To save some time, I'm going to copyedit the rest of the article, do some spotchecking, and then I'll promote the article. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 18:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.