Talk:Dead Head Fred/GA1

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

Hello, I'll be reviewing this in due course. Someoneanother 01:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's get started, here's some observations:

• Images are fine, bar the box shot which is pretty huge, please bring it down to the kind of size actually needed to fill the infobox.

I tried to shrink it, but it didn't really work. Will I have to upload a smaller version? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What someoneanother means is that you should re-upload the image at a width of 250px. Salavat (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, I think. Might need an inspection from someone with more image experience than me (so, just about anybody). — Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, just the job. Thanks for explaining it like I should have Salavat. Someoneanother 12:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not particularly moved by the first box-quote, but the second is pure puffery from the publisher, could you remove it?

 Done, both gone. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the so-called Head shops actually the kind being linked to?

No, I've removed the wikilink. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's some repetition in the different sub-sections of plot, particularly in terms of Fred being resurrected and his head being replaced by a jar, you could also merge the four smaller paragraphs into two larger ones.

 Done, should look better now. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The reception section (not the awards sub-section though) is a little patchy. There's a lot of stubby paragraphs, not helped by the separate quote, and to be honest it feels just a little brief. If it weren't for the extra spacing it would like pretty short indeed. To a large extent it's the writer's perogative how much or little depth the reception goes into, but in this instance I feel that just a little bit more would go a long way. For instance, the graphics get a single sentence with a single quote. The other thing to watch for is loaded verbage like 'lamented', it's a little journalistic, could you take another look at that section?

 Done, fleshed out, rearranged, and reworded. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, overall it's a very good article and I love the extra information like the Geo character and how the game was originally going to turn out. As per usual I need to double-check all the article links and might come up with a few more requests as a result, but the bulk of the review's done so the article is now on hold. Someoneanother 16:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in me doing that link check VanTine, I've not slept for over 24 hours now and it's really catching up with me, will do so as soon as I get some shut-eye. Someoneanother 12:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, take your time. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, just add sleep/sugar/caffeine and the ol' biological entity goes back to robotica :D OK made a tweak or two, checked all links, which is gratingly slow work but it really helps to have someone else do it during the process. The changes you've made are great, all of the above are dealt with. A few more things have come up:

• Ref #s 36-38 and 41 are press releases, please cite them as such. Also, #41 is coming directly from D3 but is attributed to Gamasutra.

 Done. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #s 18 and 20, the second and third page of Vicious Cycle's developer blog respectively, are glitched and not showing any text. That's not going to put the brakes on anything, but it may be worth sending them an email nudge if they don't get fixed. The other thing is, if they continue to be a little shaky, consider using Webcite to grab a permanent copy. If you haven't used it before then check it out, it can save a lot of headaches in the future for any article you're writing.

I shot an e-mail to Vicious Cycle, we'll see what happens. Thanks for telling me about Webcite, it looks great. For future reference, how should I note within a citation template that it's a Webcite archive? Also, if the website is not fixed in the near future, what would you suggest? Using Webcite to archive a cached Google page, maybe? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #52 is a signpost, and the page it's pointing at has been overwritten with the 2008 nominees, could you find an alternative, such as a press story confirming this? Hardly vital stuff, but it goes to show how quickly the information highway can develop cracks (beep beep, honk *wheel trim flies off*).

 Done, reference removed (redundant). — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #53 is missing its author and publication date in the citation, ditto #55.

 Done. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, thanks for your patience. Someoneanother 00:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, Dead Head Fred is now a good article. If you want to see webcite in action check out (Lil) Green Patch, where several of the citations are in that format. It looks like there's a couple of extra fields which can be added to citation templates, for the archived page address and the date it was archived. I'm not sure how to go about retrieving and backing-up defunct web pages, it might be worth asking at the game project. If nobody there knows they will have a better idea of where to find out. Your work on Good Articles is laudable, thanks for what you're contributing. Someoneanother 14:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]