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

Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 16:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate quick-failing articles. But as I continued to look through this, I unearthed way too many problems that lead me to conclude this article was sent to GA too soon. You still have a peer review open which should have been closed first, but not only that, you kept it open for two days before nominating. Nobody's going to give you enough feedback in that time.

So you can take my comments below as both a contribution to the peer review, and a quick-fail for not reaching the GA criteria.

• The lead is okay but there's too much unneeded plot. There are other aspects of the article, like the soundtrack and DLC, that are never covered in the lead.

• The biggest problem with the article is how it's written. Yet, I'm not sure how much feedback to give you because I don't want to stray into FA territory yet. I have some suggestions outside of the GA scope below if you really want this article to be the best it can be.

• Development seems to be missing a lot of information about how the game was actually designed. A quick Google search gave me this, which gives some fantastic insight, but it's never used in the article at all. I don't think you've researched the game enough, such that there's still solid information out there missing from the article.

• Basically...most of the references are incorrectly formatted. Inconsistent date format, authors are uncredited, you often don't wikilink the publisher and sometimes you use "CVG" but other times it's "ComputerAndVideoGames.com", neither of which are correct. But the biggest problem is the quality of a lot of the sources. I'm seeing lots of fan blogs and social networking accounts. Any information that can't be supported by an RS should be taken out. There are chunks here and there that have no sourcing, like much of Gameplay.

• Downloadable content is poorly organised. You have the first section that gets into really trivial information about all of the little DLC packs, then there's sub-sections that serve as plot summaries with no apparent significance to the article.

• The Post-release reception section feels brief to me. You have a paragraph that's developing okay but there's nothing beyond it. You have an enormous pool of reviews in the table but only three have actually been used. It really doesn't feel like there's been enough research into this section. That and you're violating the template's guidelines by not using all of the reviews in prose. 15 reviews is far too many. GameRankings scores should be rounded.

• File:Sleeping Dogs gameplay.jpg should be reduced and has an inadequate FUR. "To show an important phase of the game". Well, that's not a rationale.

• Basically on the whole, I don't think there's been enough attention to the criteria.

Outside of the GA scope

• Following on from my comments about the prose and your comments in the peer review about going to FA status, the article is in dire need of copy-editing. The prose rarely shines, because often sentences become mouthfuls that require reading twice in order to be understood. Let me take an example: "The core gameplay of Sleeping Dogs consists of giving the player an open world environment in which to move around freely". Yuck. What reader is going to be interested in the article if the language weighs them down like that? Most of the words in there are redundant. "The core gameplay" is already implied since, heh, this is called the Gameplay section. "consists of giving" doesn't mean anything, and "gives" would make a lot more sense. Strip the sentence down to its essence and rewrite accordingly. "In Sleeping Dogs, players freely roam an open world environment". Much, much clearer. The excessive verbosity is gone. If you want to take this article to FA you need to apply this principle to the entire thing. Otherwise you could try asking around at WP:VG or WP:GOCE for somebody else to have a go at cleaning it up.

• In Gameplay, I'm seeing copy-pasted statements from the Grand Theft Auto IV and V articles. While the statements made are true, you should rewrite things in your own words to avoid repetition within articles covering a similar subject.

Please don't take this as a jab because I honestly mean it in good faith, but you really need to think about how much work you're putting into your articles and if the work is going in the right direction. There are basic requirements for the GA criteria that aren't even close to being met. I want you to be a great contributor. But improperly sending things off to FAC and not putting enough effort into an article before nominating for GA is not going to do you any favours. CR4ZE (t • c) 16:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, 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):

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:

   CR4ZE (t • c) 16:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]