Talk:The Stanley Parable/GA1

GA Review

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: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 22:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

• Could we add some archives? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Prose

Lede

• WP:LEADs are a maximum of four paragraphs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• walking simulator video game is a WP:SEAOFBLUE. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• The word "mod" is used, without explaining what it is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• While both the mod and the remake use the first-person perspective common to other Source engine mods, there are no combat or other action-based sequences. - should comment that other mods are combat based. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Instead, the player guides Stanley, the game's protagonist, through a surreal environment while the narrator, voiced in the remake by British actor Kevan Brighting, delivers exposition. - puff. Instead "The gameplay involves guiding a silent protagonist named Stanley alongside narration by British actor Kevan Brighting." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• The whole part in the lede explaining the gameplay needs cutting, potentially say the game's focus is on the dynamic between the player and the games narrator. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Outside of Brighting's voice work as the narrator, Wreden built the modification "himself" - of course he did it himself. Should say "solely made" or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• The lede needs more wikilinks.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• More info on critical commentary is needed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

General

• Some completely unsourced parts here. Whilst you don't need to source a story summary, that's now what is here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• We need some more background. Remember the lede is a summary of the article, not a prelude. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• The story element seems pretty crufty to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• All notes should be sourced. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Lots of sentences start "Wreden", perhaps reword or, use " he" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Don't use "high-definition remake". Try "retail release", or "remake". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Shortly after the release of the original mod, Wreden was contacted by William Pugh, a player who had experience in creating environments within the Source engine and had previously won a Saxxy Award for his work.. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• QUite a few things are unsourced in prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Why are some images left aligned? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Steam link should be for steam greenlight. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• One massive paragraph followed by a small one. Consider split/merge. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Given the unique nature of the title which is aimed at surprising the player and breaking their expectations, a traditional demo that would showcase some parts of the actual game would take away from the surprise in the full title. - is this a quote? Sounds NPOV breaking. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• IGN's Luke Reilly listed The Stanley Parable's as one of the top six demos in video games, citing how the demo is "an entirely standalone exercise designed to prepare [the player] for the unique player and narrator relationship that forms the core of The Stanley Parable experience".[17] - this should be in reception. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• The OS X version (requiring 10.8 or later) was released on December 19, 2013, with support for older versions of OS X expected to arrive shortly thereafter.[ - we don't comment on release dates of softwares. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Physical release - should be in development, or better it should be put into a "release section", with some info from the Development section. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• COuld you remove the scores from the reception? If it's also in the table, we shouldn't also mention in the prose, unless very important. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• The reception section needs to fix some paragraph breaks. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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:

Comments

• Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definitely not mandatory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
  • Placing on hold as per the above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• • A comment as an editor that had worked on this before , only that we know we have this Ultra-Deluxe version that is due out Real Soon Now, and while incorporating any additional reception related to that should not be too difficult, want to make sure that's not going to be an issue towards the GAC process (eg knowing there may be some changes coming). --Masem (t) 23:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Leaving a message on this page too: I fixed some of the issues mentioned above. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I'd rather you addressed the points individually, rather than dropping me a talk page message. I'm not sure as to some of the edits, for instance you've added citations to the lede (with enbolding, which isn't suitable in this case). You use some wikicode such as The Blake Robinson Synthetic Orchestra which is a little weird. There's information remaining such as " (requiring 10.8 or later)" I'm not sure why we refer to the game as "high-definition remake" in so many places, as it's simply a retail release of the game, which was based on a source engine mod.
      • We literally don't mention what a mod is in the prose of the article either.
      • As an aside, the fact another release is scheduled for the game, shouldn't effect it becoming a GA now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Okay, I'll go through the significant changes in a bullet list, as well as my other responses to your critique (AntiGravityMaster (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)):
  • Reduced the number of paragraphs in the lead down to 3 by restructuring and removing redundant info.
  • Fixed "sea of blue" issue.
  • Is it necessary to explain what a mod is when the lead contains a link to an article on Source engine mods? I'd like to make the case that defining it within the article would be redundant for this reason.
  • Fixed the "combat-related" sentence to be more clear.
  • Fixed the puff by using your suggested sentence.
  • Cut the gameplay lead down.
  • I don't believe I made this edit, but the "built the modification himself" sentence was restructured.
  • Added some links to the lead where I figured they'd be appropriate, although if those still aren't enough I'm open to suggestions.
  • Added sources to the story summary.
  • Unsure what you mean by needing more background, as I think the "Gameplay and story" section provides a fair amount.
  • Story is a pretty integral part to TSP, considering there's very little gameplay, so I don't personally see it as "crufty".
  • Sourced the note.
  • Replaced some instances of "Wreden" with pronouns.
  • "HD remake" has, iirc, been used in a few official sources, but considering I'm not too confident on that claim I'd be willing to change it over to "remake".
  • Cited Pugh's Saxxy award.
  • Sourced a few things in the prose, although I may have missed some.
  • Realigned images.
  • There is no "steam greenlight" page, so linking to it doesn't make much sense to me.
  • Rearranged paragraphs.
  • Fixed NPOV break.
  • Moved the demo review to Reception.
  • Missed the OSX bit in my first read through, I'll fix that shortly.
  • Moved physical release to development.
  • Did some minor edits to paragraphs in Reception, but I'll look over it again.

Right - took a good look through - I'm happy with this now. Good job. As Masem stated earlier, with additional info coming from another remake, this will need to be updated to avoid it being GAR'd, but for now it's fine. Passing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

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.