This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps articles
@
Abryn: I think it would be better to use the app icon for the infobox and finding a gameplay screenshot to place in the gameplay section. In my humble opinion, I recommend a gif so people can have a good understanding of what the gameplay is. Unfortunately, I don't own an iPhone. If this came out on android, I can record the gameplay myself and create a gif out of it. I also can't find any video of the gameplay either. If you have any video footage available online, let me know and I'll create a gif for it.
Blue Pumpkin Pie (
talk)
21:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The reception section needs work. Right now it's just a laundry list of "Person X from Publication Y said Z" rather than synthesizing those critic opinions into something cohesive.
I think the gameplay section could use a little more fleshing out. It's not made explicit that Elizabeth is running along the text, and until I dug into the sources I didn't really know that the running is automatic.
Images::
File:Stride and Prejudice.png has an improper fair use rationale; it's talking about the logo of the game but the logo is probably public domain as simple text, you have to justify using the splash screen/promo art/what have you.
References::
The big question to me is whether this topic at 650 words including the lead is broad enough for GA status. I'm inclined to think it's not at present; given that length isn't a concern there's more detail that could be added.
A quick search for sources brought up
[1][2][3] on the first page of Google results, and that's not checking News, Scholar, Books, or any library databases. I normally wouldn't think an exhaustive perusal of available sources is needed, but considering how short the article is I think you need proportionately more.