Talk:Hohokum

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hohokum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Will have this one to you by the weekend. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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 lists:

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:

Initial comments

• The opening sentence from the lead could be reconstructed: "Hohokum is an art video game by British developer Honeyslug in collaboration with artist Richard Hogg and Sony Santa Monica for PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, and PlayStation Vita" - I think it's best to remove the 'British' from developer, as most other VG articles don't use this noun to describe developers. Other well known British developers include Rockstar, Rare, King etc and those related articles use the standard "[X] is a video game developed by [x] and published by [x]".
• When was the game released? "It features a soundtrack by Ghostly International artists and was released on August 12, 2014." but this sounds confusing as it makes out like the soundtrack was released on August 12!
• The lead does not mention who published the game
• The lead appears too short but it actually summarises the article efficiently, so this seems to meet the GA criteria.
• This game is described as "having no set objectives" in the lead but in the gameplay section it mentions that "The player collects seeds in the Kite Village", and "another level involves creating shapes in the sky" - are these objectives?
• "They entered the game into the Eurogamer Indie Showcase" - who is they? Honeyslug?
• There are no dead links and nor can I find any unreliable sources, so this side of things meet the GA criteria
• The reception section is in depth and comprehensive - so I can't find anything wrong here

On hold

This is generally a well written and well structured article. It is broad, comprehensive and gets straight to the point. The reception section is also in depth and has no problems (please tell me your secret). In conclusion the only major concern I have is the structure of the lead as it doesn't appear to clearly state the release date, publisher and seems short despite it summarises the article well. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days until those issues have been addressed. Thank you. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar, thanks for the review! I think I got everything. Let me know what you think? czar ♔ 19:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar, ping. Just wanted to make sure you saw this in the flurry of pings this morning czar ♔ 01:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thank you for your prompt improvements, the article now definitely meets the GA criteria. Well done ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Frobisher Says

Why does the term Frobisher Says redirect to this page? The only similarity between the two games is the developer.