This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Serious Sam: Tormental article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Serious Sam: Tormental" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Serious Sam: Tormental has been listed as one of the
Video games good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 25, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Serious Sam: Tormental appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 September 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: VickKiang ( talk · contribs) 03:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll review this, more comments to come. VickKiang ( talk) 03:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Nice article, I've pasted the article onto my grammar checker, and it seems the prose flows well, so criteria 1a is met, but for MoS lede and words to watch guidelines (1b), I'll need further look.
@ IceWelder: This is just a general check; I haven't looked into if the refs support the claims. Are the following RS?
[between] October 2017 and July 2018, most content (except for Zero Punctuation) was written by volunteers without staff oversight and should be handled with care.Not sure how it is now. I can find their about us, but where are the editorial policies (apologies if I didn't find it). Also, is there a better ref?
Head editor is Gamasutra author Kurt Kalata. Content written by him or Retro Gamer's John Szczepaniak is very reliable. All content is edited by Kalata before publishing and should be considered acceptable, but take additional care with claims made by other authors and in older articles.These two authors aren't the ones in this; caution could be needed, but it's still generally an RS, so either way, it's optional.
Other refs are RS. That's all for whether refs are RS now; I'll do a more in-depth read of the article soon. VickKiang ( talk) 04:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
uncontroversial material, like gameplay releases (which I'm fine of), but a review falls under the criteria 2b IMHO in
published opinion, and the reliability of this is dubious, but of course this is minor.
[t]here are very few hard and fast rules. Here they are..., how is this an RS? I opened an entry at RSN, could you please comment if possible, and many thanks again!. VickKiang ( talk) 08:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Striken, somehow didn't find this on
WP:VG/RS, oops.
But it feels incredibly small in scope and gives way to tedium much quicker than its replayable structure should allowand that on weapons and upgrades that
never reach the necessary level of absurdity to excite players to go another run. VickKiang ( talk) 08:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
some elements of the game received criticism,
however, or along the lines like that, without editoralising). Of course, this is so minor that I don't think it's required at all. Thanks! VickKiang ( talk) 23:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Tormental is a 3D game with rather simple and angular visuals. The game lacks advanced effects, however that does not matter during the gameplay, as it is fast and requires players to remain focused at all times), we could add it to the reception section (I know this review isn't great, but at least it could go together with the current 2, which is a low number IMHO). VickKiang ( talk) 08:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@ IceWelder: These are all of my suggestions; thank you. On RSN, there seems to be strong consensus that Blue News is an RS (which I disagree, but will go with the consensus), no replies for Indie Games yet, but as that's only 1 ref, which is also backed up by another, should there be no consensus, IMHO a discussion on the talk page is fine. I don't think there's too many areas of improvement otherwise, though, so I'll pass the GA, thanks IceWelder for your work and time, especially for my tiny nitpicks, and have a nice day:) VickKiang ( talk) 22:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
The result was: promoted by
CSJJ104 (
talk) 21:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by IceWelder ( talk). Self-nominated at 07:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC).
General eligibility:
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Serious Sam: Tormental article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Serious Sam: Tormental" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Serious Sam: Tormental has been listed as one of the
Video games good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 25, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Serious Sam: Tormental appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 September 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: VickKiang ( talk · contribs) 03:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll review this, more comments to come. VickKiang ( talk) 03:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Nice article, I've pasted the article onto my grammar checker, and it seems the prose flows well, so criteria 1a is met, but for MoS lede and words to watch guidelines (1b), I'll need further look.
@ IceWelder: This is just a general check; I haven't looked into if the refs support the claims. Are the following RS?
[between] October 2017 and July 2018, most content (except for Zero Punctuation) was written by volunteers without staff oversight and should be handled with care.Not sure how it is now. I can find their about us, but where are the editorial policies (apologies if I didn't find it). Also, is there a better ref?
Head editor is Gamasutra author Kurt Kalata. Content written by him or Retro Gamer's John Szczepaniak is very reliable. All content is edited by Kalata before publishing and should be considered acceptable, but take additional care with claims made by other authors and in older articles.These two authors aren't the ones in this; caution could be needed, but it's still generally an RS, so either way, it's optional.
Other refs are RS. That's all for whether refs are RS now; I'll do a more in-depth read of the article soon. VickKiang ( talk) 04:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
uncontroversial material, like gameplay releases (which I'm fine of), but a review falls under the criteria 2b IMHO in
published opinion, and the reliability of this is dubious, but of course this is minor.
[t]here are very few hard and fast rules. Here they are..., how is this an RS? I opened an entry at RSN, could you please comment if possible, and many thanks again!. VickKiang ( talk) 08:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Striken, somehow didn't find this on
WP:VG/RS, oops.
But it feels incredibly small in scope and gives way to tedium much quicker than its replayable structure should allowand that on weapons and upgrades that
never reach the necessary level of absurdity to excite players to go another run. VickKiang ( talk) 08:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
some elements of the game received criticism,
however, or along the lines like that, without editoralising). Of course, this is so minor that I don't think it's required at all. Thanks! VickKiang ( talk) 23:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Tormental is a 3D game with rather simple and angular visuals. The game lacks advanced effects, however that does not matter during the gameplay, as it is fast and requires players to remain focused at all times), we could add it to the reception section (I know this review isn't great, but at least it could go together with the current 2, which is a low number IMHO). VickKiang ( talk) 08:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@ IceWelder: These are all of my suggestions; thank you. On RSN, there seems to be strong consensus that Blue News is an RS (which I disagree, but will go with the consensus), no replies for Indie Games yet, but as that's only 1 ref, which is also backed up by another, should there be no consensus, IMHO a discussion on the talk page is fine. I don't think there's too many areas of improvement otherwise, though, so I'll pass the GA, thanks IceWelder for your work and time, especially for my tiny nitpicks, and have a nice day:) VickKiang ( talk) 22:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
The result was: promoted by
CSJJ104 (
talk) 21:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by IceWelder ( talk). Self-nominated at 07:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC).
General eligibility:
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |