Talk:The Sims 4/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 21:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Will be working on this week, expect comments by next weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• The lead doesn't feel like it's adequately lengthy for the contents involved. Doesn't mention its origins as an online title and pivot from Development, for instance, or really cover the controversies or sales, etc.
• There is no primary objective or goal to achieve (with the exception of some game packs) Right off the bat this gets confusing. I have no idea what game packs are in this situation, and it doesn't seem like the best way of presenting the Sims gameplay is to make a declarative statement you immediately walk back on.
• explore different personalities which change the way the game plays out is the player exploring personalities, or are the Sims?
• The gameplay section is kind of a mess, prose-wise. You've got a run-on sentence with commas scattered everywhere (e.g., Sims need to develop skills for jobs and crafting items, for example, Sims in the Culinary career track need to be proficient in the Cooking skill. or more contradictory statements stacked after each other ("sliders for facial features are removed"... followed by "fitness and fatness levels are still adjusted with sliders".) Repetitious wording (the aforementioned "facial and bodily features" are repeated in successive sentences, and after explainign you can manipulate body features the prose then proceeds to list them all out anyhow.)
  • Organization feels iffy: you don't explain things like Create-a-Sim or Build Mode until you run into their subsections, meaning the introduction doesn't read like much of an introduction in this section. I'm not sure why the Gallery is its own subsection when it's just a paragraph, and the Worlds in the The Sims 4 just seems like game cruft (we don't list levels or stages in games unless there's secondary sourcing backing it up.)
  • Also on this point, I think the article really needs to better integrate updates to the gameplay than it does, where stuff is sort of tacked on at the end. Mentioning increased skin tones were revamped can be a one-line thing to add when talking about body shape and ethnicity, for example.
• Nothing else but a single sentence for the mention of the composer? Why does he get an image if he's not important enough for a paragraph?
• Without context, the list of updates is basically just meaningless jargon. What is a Neighborhood story feature? Is the addition of bunk beds and new hair designs really a "major" update?
• It seems a bit weird to me that the section featuring post-release updates comes before any mention of release, marketing, or reception for the base product.
  • The marketing section has a bunch of random trivia sprinkled in that's not really given any context.
• Any "controversies" section raises my hackles, and I don't think this one should actually exist. Again, we've got "let's cover reception to stuff before we've actually covered reception to the base game" issues, the "missing features" stuff feels like it should be streamlined and integrated into the talk about development, which right now is pretty weak anyhow, and you've mentioned the skin tone thing at this point twice before this, so why do we need it a third time in its own subsection?
• No updated reception on the game years after the fact? Since it's undergone heavy changes, this feels needed.
• Given the article itself mentions the stuff packs and kits are pretty minor, I'm not seeing any reason for those lists to be in this article, or on Wikipedia in general.

There's insufficient recent reviews of the game to warrant its own section. All recent reviews for The Sims 4 are for the game's expansion and stuff packs, which are in their respective articles. Theknine2 (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• There's some sourcing issues throughout: some sources, like New York Post, probably shouldn't be used at all, some stuff is primary sourcing to things like Tweets, and probably shouldn't be used at all (if it's important, is there secondary sourcing?) and the sources themselves are haphazardly formatted (some are wikilinked, some aren't, some have top-level domains appended, some don't.)

There's good bones to the article and it has improved since the last GAN, but given the issues with sourcing, coverage, and organization that still remain, I'm going to fail the article at this point. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, looks like this article still requires a lot more work that I still haven’t noticed. Theknine2 (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)