Talk:Hogwarts Legacy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Night Watch (talk · contribs) 20:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

---

I will take a look at the article this weekend The Night Watch (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, 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):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Video

Quick note before I begin the review sometime tomorrow: the video should be removed because it appears to be not uploaded by the copyright holder, and is likely a copyright violation (see Wikipedia:Video links#Use. I also don’t think it can be considered valid under WP:NFCC as it is two minutes of content, which is certainly not minimal use. The Night Watch (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done I was already not 100% on board with this, but the discussion above (Trailer freeness) seemed to be reasonable. Anyways, I removed it for now, as your argument of the length of content is valid. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I saw that the YouTube video was listed under Creative Commons, but I'm a little skeptical of that still, as that might have been done by a staffer who didn't have authorization. Anyway, other images look good. The Night Watch (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio

Passes Earwig's, appears to be no Copyvio. The Night Watch (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Prose

Infobox and lead appear to be solid prose-wise. Planning on taking this to FAC? The Night Watch (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I would be interested to do so, yes. I would have to get familiar with the FAC process and requirements though. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't too bad, just some copyediting and reorganization to help bring the writing up to scratch. You'll also get a source review where they look and see if your sources are all high-quality, and do "spot-checking" to make sure the cited information is right. I suggest you take notes on a few other video game FAs, and ask around for some advice if needed. The Night Watch (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I might take a look at it once the article reached good article status. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Gameplay

• The organization of Gameplay is a bit strange. The writing kind of abruptly changes from talking about the locations, and then goes about the four houses even before it is mentions that players can join one of them. I suggest that you reorganize and first talk about the character creation and how the player character is formed, and what they can do (i.e. cast spells, brew potions master combat abilities) then talk about the four houses and their exclusive quests/rooms. After that, you can discuss the familiar locations and specific gameplay mechanics such as quests and challenges.
• Also, I'm surprised that the open word mechanics are only mentioned in the lead, and aren't given any information about how they work in gameplay. Can you explain how the game and its mechanics relate to an open world?

 Done I did an attempt on this section, is it sufficient? Or would you like to see more here? I am struggling a bit on what to include and what not. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks better now. I think we can give this section a pass. The Night Watch (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Synopsis

• I'd suggest that go over the article and remove a few of the wikilinks, as it is customary for them to be only be included twice in the article: once in the lead or infobox, and again on the first time they appear in the text. (See MOS:DUPLINK)
• The game introduced several new characters, with Professor Eleazar Fig being an essential character as the mentor in the player's journey. Yes, this is true in regards to the Wizarding World, but the plot section should be considered to be self-contained, and not talking about the Wizarding World as a fictional universe, and the new characters introduced to it (MOS:UNIVERSE). So the part about them being "new" characters should be removed.
• Plot section otherwise looks good, but there are a few things that I will clarify within the text.

 Done I fixed the few wikilinks left after you already did most of it yourself. I adjusted the part about new characters to make the section self-contained. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Development

• I found quite a few unnecessary links here. Most people will know of art design, direction, and the like, so the links are likely not necessary. A look-through the article to find other wikilinks may be needed.
• Five years in the making, experts estimate Hogwarts Legacy's budget at $150 million. "Experts estimate the game's total budget to be $150 million."
• I'm concerned about the neutrality of talking about Leavitt's departure. I think this could be something delegated to release, and it feels rather jarring to move from Leavitt talking about development, then the controversy, then someone else taking about development.
• The magic village Hogsmeade was created to feature well-known establishments like The Three Broomsticks Inn, a popular gathering place for both villagers and students. Other created locations in the area include Hog’s Head, an inn with a less favorable reputation, and Zonko’s, the go-to store for novelty tricks I understand that this is what the writers intended to make and eventually created, but how is this important to how the game itself was created? The following sentence about populated areas gives more insight into what the writers were going for.

 Done The link issues seem to be fixed already by yourself, and I did not see any other necessary addition in the development section. I fixed the budget sentence, moved the Leavitt part to release and excluded the Hogsmeade description completely. I would assume that it is a bit too detailed and we already have enough information in the synopsis section (where I would place it if we want to keep it). Vestigium Leonis (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Release

• What are the differences between the editions of the game? If you mention them, I think you should also mention the differences.
• Further review forthcoming. I'll take a look at Reception first. Then we can move back to this and then spot-checking and sourcing.
• Shortly before the release of Hogwarts Legacy, a dedicated page was created with the sole purpose of targeting Twitch streamers who played the game. The web tool in question filtered accounts streaming the game, leading to the harassment of some. A dedicated page of what exactly?
• The Release section appears neutral enough, and provides a variety of different opinions on this controversial game. I think I can give the article a pass for neutrality.

 Done Editions info added and page sentence fixed. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Reception

• A discussion a little while back at WT:VG had a consensus that Sales sections should avoid becoming somewhat of a "hype list", and should only document the Sales figures at launch and the most recent figures. (See MOS:VG#Sales)
• This section was quite well done overall. The commentary flowed quite smoothly. I'll give the article a pass on prose and grammar.

Regarding the sales section: It reports on its success in pre-orders, sales and player engagement based on multiple reliable sources. Per area or country, it features 1 sentence of the debut and an additional on records or total sales. I do think it is written according to the manual of style, but some sentences could be reduced. If you really want to have it trimmed a bit, I would probably exclude the parts about HL surpassing Elden Ring's lifetime sales and the part about HL being the best selling game of 2023 so far in US. The three sentences about player engagement (from 267 to 280 to 400) could probably be reduced to two sentences. The Steam part could also be put into two sentences but it would not reduce it by a lot. I will do that later and you can let me know if that is what you would have expected. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The sales section is a full two paragraphs, when with most best-selling games (See here, here and here as examples) are much shorter and focused mostly on sales rather than the hours played or other details. Since this section is supposed to be focused on sales, I'll be culling this section to focus on that topic mostly. The Night Watch (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I see. I would suggest to add the information that is not traditionally "sales" at the end of the release section then? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Typically yes, but some information, although true, may not need to be included in the article at all. It's the whole thing with WP:SS; Asking yourself "Will the average reader benefit from all this information?" is usually how I try to determine what to keep or omit, but still there will be editors with different opinions on what to keep or remove as superfluous material. The material I removed from sales appeared superfluous, as I'm not sure whether average readers will find value out of every topped chart or sales prediction. The Night Watch (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Alright, makes sense. I considered it as interesting to read, but seeing it being cut now does not change much for me - so we can move on. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I’ll have to postpone the review for a little while. I just came up with a health issue requiring surgery. Nothing too serious, but I’ll be out of commission for a few days. The Night Watch (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem, get well! I will remain available so we can finish this as soon as you are ready. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'm back from the hospital and making a swift recovery. Bedridden for the most part, but that gives me lots of time to look over the sources The Night Watch (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources

• I've never seen the term (website) listed after an online ref in an article, and it creates some inconsistent referencing because not all of the webpage sources have the term (website) listed after them. I think you need to remove the term (website) to make the citation style consistent throughout the article (MOS:REFERENCES)
• I'm checking over WP:VG/S to make sure all the refs are reliable or reliable within their areas of use. Most appear alright, though there are a few that stand out:
  • What makes GameByte a reliable source?
  • Game Rant is not a high-quality source, and you'll run into some trouble if you use it at WP:FAC. I also see that the website appears to be focused around content farming, so I'd appreciate its removal or replacement.
  • Same case with Screen Rant. It appears to not be supporting any controversial statements about living persons in the article, and is borderline alright for use (WP:VG/S), but other sourcing would definitely be better.
  • What makes Yahoo! Movies reliable for reporting on Gameplay?
  • DualShockers is considered "situationally reliable", and should be replaced if any other sources are available. Did anyone else report on the video that the article is talking about? The WP:VG/SE might help with the searching.
  • Although The Mary Sue is considered to be situationally reliable, its usage in the Release section appears to be giving a little undue weight, as reporting on a social media rumor, and then immediately saying that the rumor may be relying upon a mere coincidence, does not instill with me the confidence that this is a prominent viewpoint that needs to be included in this section about controversies. The other viewpoints talking about Antisemetic tropes are more widely supported, and I am sure they give due weight, but I'm concerned that this specific point relying mostly upon social media chat and possible coincidences has a neutrality issue and should be removed.
  • Allmusic appears alright, as its sister website Allgames is considered to be generally reliable, and the webpages are really only used to source the names of the composers for the soundtrack.
  • What makes Apple Music a reliable source?
  • Destructoid is situational, but discussions at WT:VG/S imply that Chris Carter is fine for writing game reviews
  • Wccftech is of inconclusive reliability, and Gaming Bolt is already reporting on the same information, so it should probably be removed.
• More forthcoming... Spot checks forthcoming.
  • Spot checked refs for Gameplay: 1, 2, 3 (WP:AGF on content, locked behind paywall) 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 17,
    • In ref 17, there is nothing talking about Floo Powder being a fast travel option. What's up with that?
  • Spot checks for Synopsis/Development: 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 32, 12, 40
    • For source 12, the source did not say that the game was designed to feature less populated areas to help with exploration, but that it may have been designed with less populated areas to help facilitate exploration.
  • Spot checks for Music/Release/Sales: 42, 46, 47, 51, 70, 73, 71, 72, 76, 80, 90, 39, 152, 171
• In general, the sources look to be for the most part fine. FAC reviewers will have their opinions and reservations, but aside from the issues I highlighted above, I think this will be good enough sourcing for GA. Once this section is finished up, I'll do one last sweep of the article. The Night Watch (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I took care of the GameByte, Yahoo! Movies and Wccftech comments and fixed the spot check issues. I also agree on the undue weight of The Mary Sue here and excluded it. I do agree on your comments on Game Rant, Screen Rant and DualShockers. I would assume that they are sufficient for now but should be replaced once this page is planned to go as a FAC, correct? And lastly, I replaced the Apple Music sources with the Allmusic sources. Is that sufficient? Otherwise I would probably just exclude it for now as well. I will look into the (website) issue now. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Yes, they will be good enough for GA, but FAC will be a different story. I'll take one last look while you finish up with the website issue. The Night Watch (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if something else is left. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll give this one a pass. Well done! The Night Watch (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That's great to hear. Thanks for your support and detailed input, I can take a lot of this into consideration for future noms / reviews. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)