GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cognissonance (talk · contribs) 12:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Failed twice. Hopefully it has been improved since then. Cognissonance (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cognissonance for taking the time to review the article. I appreciate it. Let me know what I can do to make the article better. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Plot / Gameplay

[edit]

Development

[edit]

Overall

[edit]

Early on in the review, I came to understand why the article hasn't been promoted to Good Article in the past and, halfway, I knew I couldn't finish it. It has fundamental problems with unreadable prose, illogical info placement, and unreliable sources. Plot is half-written like it's a Gameplay section; Gameplay almost looks like a plot section. In my opinion, it can only be saved by rewriting it from scratch with reliable sources listed on WP:VG/RS and a heavy copy editing from the Guild. For now, it fails to meet the Good Article criteria. Cognissonance (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]