This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Horror Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is underdeveloped and needs to be expanded in more detail than what it currently has. There needs to be more reviews on the game with an infobox added for the game's reception. Also there needs to be more information on the game's development and quite possible the game's visual style as well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There should also be a mention of all the awards it won.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: Etherial Eldon (talk · contribs) 23:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: A412 (talk · contribs) 23:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Etherial Eldon:, I'm going to pause here and put this nomination on hold. As it stands, there are substantial problems with GA criterion 2b (cites reliable sources). I think it's fixable, but it's going to be a fair bit of work, and I'd want to be confident that there's someone (you, or another editor) who's committed to getting this to the GA standard. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some potential references to reliable sources we could base the article on, in addition to the ones already included:

• Smith, Adam (30 April 2013). "Jump Scare City: Cry of Fear". Rock, Paper, Shotgun.
• "Good Game Stories - Retro Game Reveal and Goodbye". Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
• "Test du jeu Cry of Fear sur PC". Jeuxvideo.com. 26 July 2013.

~ A412 ^talk! 05:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As of this revision.

As there are 17 references, I'll check all of them.

• [1] - Fine.
• [2] - Two problems: First, Neoseeker is not considered a reliable source, per WP:VG/S#Unreliable sources. Second, neither this reference nor [3] seem to actually source the claim that the game was praised for its innovative use of the Half-Life engine, just that it used the engine.
• [3] - It's very unclear to me what on this page is being cited, and see my note from [2].
• [4] - Fine.
• [5] - Fine.
• [6] - Is The Advocate a reliable source?
• [7] - Is Co-Optimus a reliable source? In this case, player count of the content of the game is actually the kind of self-descriptive, uncontroversial information that's fine to source from a first-party source, like the Steam entry. (See WP:ABOUTSELF)
• [8] - Is Valve Time a reliable source?
• [9] - Fine.
• [10] - Forum threads are usually not considered reliable sources per WP:USERG.
• [11] - Fine.
• [12] - I cannot determine what this is referencing.
• [13] - Fine.
• [14] - Is SUPERJUMP a reliable source? It appears to be a self-published Medium blog.
• [15] - Fine.
• [16] - Is Mash Those Buttons a reliable source?
• [17] - Fine.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed