Talk:The Sims 4/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this soon. ♦ jaguar 14:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead doesn't mention the Australian or UK/EU release dates in prose per WP:VG/DATE

WP:VG/DATE does not mention having region release dates in lead ("avoiding specific mention of platform and region releases unless significant"), hence I have summarised it to September 2014. Theknine2 (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The game has received mixed reviews since its release, with the majority of criticism directed towards its lack of content." - this needs to be expanded upon and moved to the bottom of the last paragraph as is the typical convention. What did critics laud/criticise specifically?
Per WP:LEADCITE citations shouldn't be included in the lead unless it's backing up challengable material. It would be best to remove them

Done, all resolved Theknine2 (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

The first paragraph is unsourced
"The focus of the games is on the simulated lives of virtual people called "Sims"" - this would read better as The game focuses on the simulated lives of virtual people called "Sims"
"They can place their Sims in pre-constructed homes" - this isn't a good way to start a new paragraph, change this to Players
The Create-a-Sim subsection contains stubby paragraphs which break the flow of prose
"Seven life stages for Sims are available: i.e. baby, toddler, child, teenager, young adult, adult and elder" - remove 'i.e' as the seven types are included anyway
The fourth paragraph in the Create-a-Sim is unsourced
"In The Sims 4, Build and Buy modes have been merged and are treated as a single feature." - this sentence gives the impression of reading outdated, just state In The Sims 4, Build and Buy modes are merged and treated as a single feature.
"A detailed Build/Buy mode system is included along with several neighborhoods and landscaping. Some locked Buy mode items may be unlocked through the progression of career levels. " - doesn't have a citation here
"There are premade rooms that can be placed instantly. Wall heights can be adjusted. The Sims 4 improves upon the blueprint mode of The Sims 3, allowing players to place down fully furnished rooms in a variety of styles. There is also a pool tool with triangular, square and octagonal pool tool options. " - this too is unsourced. Also, some parts of this sentence doesn't give the impression of being factual, rather it compares certain features with its predecessor
"Foundations are no longer treated as separate levels on a building. Foundations can be added to or removed from a building" - repetition. Delete the second 'foundations': Foundations are no longer treated as separate levels on a building; they can be added to or removed from a building
It is concerning that almost all of the 'Worlds' subsection is unsourced
"Producer Grant Rodiek stated in 2018, "It isn't out of the question", in regards to a question on Twitter about the possible introduction of a world creation tool. However, he mentioned that the issue was, "a conversation we need to have to figure out."[28] As of 2021, no world creation tool for The Sims 4 has been announced." - I'd recommend removing this entire paragraph as its speculative nature is out of place for the gameplay section
"which is a core part of a Sim's simology" - this seems informal, though I gather it is a core mechanic within the Sims franchise? Unfamiliar readers wouldn't understand unless it's explained
"Moodlets influence the current emotion of a Sim" - the definition of 'moodlet' hasn't been explained. Is it synonymous with one's emotional state?

Done, all resolved Theknine2 (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Development

The post-release section is very choppy and relies too heavily with opening dates
"Vaughn told International Business Times that the team was "working on a Mac version right now."" - very outdated

Done, all resolved Theknine2 (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing and release

More choppy paragraphs here. The prose should flow more smoothly. This would benefit from a copyedit
The Ratings section is very banal and makes for unencyclopaedic content

Done, all resolved Theknine2 (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

This section concerns me. Reviewers should not have their own individual paragraphs - reception sections should ideally focus on what reviewers liked/disliked and branch off on that. See Donkey Kong 64 as an example for an ideal reception section

Done, all resolved Theknine2 (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Ref 3 (Metacritic score) is unformatted
Ref 13 (thesims.com) is not formatted correctly. The link redirects to EA
What makes ref 67 a reliable source?
There are many dubious or unreliable sources here, including fan forums and as well as certain sites deemed unreliable per WP:VG/S

Done, all resolved Theknine2 (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this article doesn't meet the GA criteria and would require some substantial work for it to do so. I could have dug deeper but there are prevailing issues which would have made my review much longer. There are many unformatted and unreliable sources, as well as many unsourced portions within the prose. The prose itself is quite cluttered and some parts rely too heavily on dates and when things were added; the gameplay section should also be more 'factual' and shouldn't compare itself too much with its predecessor. Please don't be disheartened by the fail, Theknine2, this article evidently is built upon the additions of users who added small bits over the years, and that isn't your fault. Come back to me if you would like advice or have any questions. In the mean time compare this with some other GAs, and how they match with MOS:VG. Regards, ♦ jaguar 21:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Thank you for taking the time to look through the article. I will take more time to fix its issues before re-nominating for GA. Theknine2 (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: I have fixed all the above issues, in addition to copyediting, fixed as much of the prose as I could, and replaced unreliable sources. Please advise on any further issues within the article, and if it is ready for GA re-review. Thank you! Theknine2 (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknine2: I'm still seeing some stubby paragraphs cluttered throughout the 'Create-a-sim' and 'Post-release' subsections along with outdated content in the Controversies section. I removed a redundant part from the reception section. It is looking slightly better but the article would generally benefit from a clean up. Nominate it again when you're ready and I'll take another look. ♦ jaguar 10:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! I'll certainly continue work on this article. Theknine2 (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]