Talk:Ridiculous Fishing

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave some initial comments under 24 hours and will mainly focus on copy editing issues. Thanks! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Lead

• "The game was developed and published by Vlambeer—Rami Ismail and Jan Willem Nijman" - assuming that these guys literally are Vlambeer, should this by described in the lead or put in brackets?
• Other than this though the lead complies per WP:LEAD and meets the GA criteria as it summarises the whole article.

Gameplay

• "The player is Billy, a fisherman who fishes in pursuit of fame" - sounds like the player who plays the game is Billy! How about something like The player assumes the role of Billy, a fisherman who fishes in pursuit of fame?
• "...and the player taps the screen to shoot the fish out of the sky[3] to earn money" - ref should be placed at end of the sentence?

Development

• "Vlambeer designer Jan Willem ("JW")" - is there any need to have his initials there?
• "The team's emotional tensions eased upon learning that Noodlecake Studios's Super Stickman Golf 2 would also release on the same day." - just a question, why did this ease their tension if it would release on the same day?
• This section's prose is generally good, so it meets the GA criteria

Images

The images meet the GA criteria.

References

This article has an appropriate reference section and no dead links, so this meets the GA criteria.

On hold

This is a neat and compact article. The only problems I found with it some minor, confusing prose issues but other than that most of the article meets the GA criteria. Images are good, the references meet the GA criteria, the lead and reception sections both meet the GA criteria. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days even thought it doesn't need it! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar, thanks for the review. I thought the em dash parenthetical in the lede was sufficient but let me know what you suggest otherwise. Nijman is known as JW in most of the sources, so I thought it was appropriate to include (even though we only use the surnames after the first use on WP). I think I've addressed the rest—take a look czar ♔ 22:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thanks for addressing all of those points so swiftly. I think the lead looks fine the way it is, and everything else has also been clarified. I don't know what else there is - this whole article meets the GA criteria as it's prose is also excellent. Well done on another GA! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

JPG images

BTW, I think the Ridiculous Fishing series of images might have a chance at FPC. What do you think about using JPGs so that they render sharper in the article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
— Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Greg Wohlwend/archive1

@Crisco 1492, I uploaded JPGs but they're appearing less sharp than I expected them to be. Thoughts? And would I send the PNG set to FPC even though the JPG versions are in the article? czar ♔ 08:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• You'd be nominating the JPGs as they are in the article. Flick between the two to compare: JPG, PNG. You can see the lines more clearly in the JPGs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks! czar ♔ 10:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)