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

Reviewer: Tortle (talk · contribs) 05:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tortle: Any comment on this review after passing it (e.g. see this review for an example). Esquivalience ^t 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tortle, where's the review? At the very least, the lede's development stuff should be moved into a development section, the "original research" inline tag should be addressed (a citation for every paragraph), and the lede should be a summary of the article's contents rather than the place where items are first cited... Also there were no dev interviews on the dev process for the dev section? – czar 15:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judging their other GA reviews and drive-by GA nominations, I don't think the reviewer fully understands the process. They've only made 48 mainspace edits.--The1337gamer (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can an experienced editor reassess the article? Although I still believe that it nearly meets the GA criteria, there's always something wrong. Esquivalience ^t 16:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, some more comments:

• There is no "development" section because a) it's a relatively new and simple game b) there are no reliable sources covering the development; just some Reddit speculation and c) the development process is opaque. If someone can find RS on the development, then I'll add it in.
• There is semi-protection as with any other game propagated through social media. It's not an edit war or content dispute; but addition of garbage links, copyright violations, and vandalism. Esquivalience ^t 16:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a bunch of interviews from a simple search. They're fine to add as self-published sources. – czar 16:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's some good information right there - added development section. Esquivalience ^t 17:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Article renominated for GA. Esquivalience ^t 17:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]