DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Natlan

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

GA review

[edit]
Passed. nub :) 19:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Natlan (Genshin Impact)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gommeh (talk · contribs) 17:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 05:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this! nub :) 05:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a conglomeration of all the passes of this article I've done over the past day, so apologies if it's a bit disjointed. Anywho, here you go:

1a: prose

[edit]

I have a few quibbles with the prose itself:

  • Located west of Sumeru, its ideal is war and its element is fire (Pyro). – What's an ideal?
  • On two occasions that I can see, sentences within the article end on clauses that could be removed without much loss. For example, in § Scenes and gameplay, the first sentence of the second paragraph states: Nightsoul's Blessing, a new combat system tied to Natlan characters and the Traveler, further expanded gameplay. How did it further expand gameplay? I understand that the explanation comes directly after this statement, but you could merge the two sentences were it not for the assertion that it "further expanded gameplay.": Nightsoul's Blessing, a new combat system tied to Natlan characters and the Traveler, boosted combat power, providing buffs that either increased damage or enhanced mobility during exploration.
    • Another example in § Music: Hints of Mesoamerican instrumentation and Polynesian-style chants further expanded the soundscape, reinforcing the sense of cultural fusion behind the region. — I don't think it's necessary to connect the fact that there was more instrumentation to the attempt at cultural fusion by HOYO-MiX. The connection is implied, so there's no need to reiterate it. I'd suggest even removing the idea that it "further expanded the soundscape" because that sounds a bit non-neutral: They also added Mesoamerican instrumentation and Polynesian-style chants.
    • Both have been done. Gommeh 📖/🎮 14:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and noted that the music makes exploring Natlan feel more immersive. in § Music & ...noting that Natlan had "memorable verticality and speed" to it that other nations in the game lacked. in § Reception — "Noted", per WP:WTW, implies objectivity or truthfulness.
  • ...and was seen as a game-changed that made exploration more dynamic and rewarding for players. — I presume you mean "game-changer"? Even then, "game-changer" is not very neutral and should be designated as a quotation or removed entirely.
  • Screen Rant's Cody Gravelle was impressed by the innovations in gameplay, noting that Natlan had "memorable verticality and speed" to it that other nations in the game lacked. The integration of terrain traversal abilities into both the characters and the world received praise as well, and was seen as a game-changed that made exploration more dynamic and rewarding for players. Natlan's design choices were also received positively, with TheGamer calling Natlan "gorgeous" and also echoing Gravelle's comments that exploration was a lot easier. — I'm confused. Does this not all say the same thing? Rather, is the information not presented a bit circuitously? You move from innovation to gameplay to design, and back to gameplay. I'm honestly not sure how to make this point actionable, but I'd like some clarification.
    • I have rephrased that paragraph in the hope of making it clearer and flow better. I've turned it into this:

Critics gave Natlan a mixed reception, though most praised its gameplay innovations. The Nightsoul system in particular was highlighted for adding mobility, with Screen Rant's Cody Gravelle calling its verticality and speed "memorable" compared to other nations. Reviewers also commented that integrating traversal abilities into both characters and the environment made exploration more dynamic and rewarding. Beyond gameplay, Natlan's visual design was also well-received. TheGamer described the region as "gorgeous" and agreed that its layout made exploration much easier. Hopefully this is better. Gommeh 📖/🎮 14:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC) That's about all I can muster here, though. nub :) 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems much better to me! nub :) 16:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1b: formatting

[edit]

Seems fine. I only have one suggestion (which isn't even strictly required): there are several one-or-two-sentence paragraphs, and I, personally, would merge these into their more developed predecessors or successors (but again, this is my preference and it is not required). nub :) 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2a: list of sources

[edit]

There is a well-formatted list of references at the bottom of the page. nub :) 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2b: reliability and referencing

[edit]

I have three points here:

  • Source 24 is currently attributed to Yahoo Entertainment, but they did not write the listed article themselves. It is, in fact, GamesRadar+'s article. I'd suggest this be rectified.
  • Half of the "Scenes and gameplay" section is uncited.
  • On WP:VG/S, Pocket Tactics and Inverse are said to have had inconclusive discussions. Do you have any justification for them being usable here?
    • I've removed Inverse and replaced it with another citation to Dot Esports which is considered reliable. Although, IMO the two articles practically said the same thing I'm more than happy to make the change. The person who wrote the Pocket Tactics article is one of their staff writers and has experience writing for PCGamesN and NME which are both considered reliable. However, he also wrote for The Loadout (unreliable) and Dexerto (situational). I'll let you make the call whether to delete it or not. Gommeh 📖/🎮 14:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that seems fine. nub :) 16:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise everything seems somewhat reliable and every passage is cited. nub :) 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2c: original research

[edit]

Here is a spotcheck of about 1⁄2 of all the references in the article to ensure that there exists text–source integrity. Reference numbers are as per diff 1309825509:

  • Ref 1: Checks out.
  • Ref 2: Does not check out. The source does not mention the concept art of the tribal villages as far as I can see.
  • Ref 3a: Checks out.
  • Ref 3b: Checks out.
  • Ref 3c: Seems fine.
  • Ref 3d: Seems okay.
  • Ref 5a: Sure.
  • Ref 5b: Does not check out. The source does not say each tribe has its own unique territory, traditions and culture.
  • Ref 8a: Does not check out. The Pocket Tactics source is broadly talking about its design; nowhere does it talk about its music.
  • Ref 8b: Sure.
  • Ref 10: Yes.
  • Ref 12: Yes.
  • Ref 14a: Sure.
  • Ref 14b: Sure, you could say that.
  • Ref 16a: Does not mention the Nightsoul system by name.
  • Ref 16b: I can't find that the article directly states that the other nations lacked the "memorable verticality and speed." I mean, it's certainly implied, but there's nothing outright stating it.
  • Ref 16c: I see that the author acknowledged the integration, but I don't think they outright praised it. This is minor, though, so it's not a big deal.
    I see. This is fine, then. nub :) 16:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 18: The source does not say that "critics" pointed it out (only "fans" and "voice actors", but this is also minor.
  • Ref 19a: Sure.
  • Ref 19b: Yes.
  • Ref 19c: Indeed, the tweet is embedded in the source.
  • Ref 19d: I assume you meant this reference to be the attribute of the whole sentence, in which case, yes, it corroborates most of it.
  • Ref 21a: Sure.
  • Ref 21b: Yes.
  • Ref 21c: I guess you could gather that Kotaku described the issue as Genshin Impact's biggest controversy yet from the clause ...the backlash over such accusations has never before reached the level it has now..., but the source does not corroborate the claim that the Change.org petition "fanned" the backlash.
  • Ref 22a: Sure.
  • Ref 22b: Yes.
  • Ref 26: Mostly accurate, but the source does not make the connection that Yatco was referring to Sumeru's controversy.

Overall, the integrity seems to be mostly okay, but there are some glaring issues that should be fixed for this to rise to GA level. nub :) 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


2d: plagiarism

[edit]

Earwig says "violation unlikely", with the highest percentage at 25.9%, whose only "similarities" with the article are quotes. Completely swell here. nub :) 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3a: main topics

[edit]

The sourcing is quite sparse as-is. There's nothing major that stands out to me as missing or overlooked. nub :) 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3b: focus

[edit]

Ditto from the point above. nub :) 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4: neutrality

[edit]

Hm...it seems mostly neutral, but I do think some POV slips in at times, for example:

Overall, it isn't egregiously non-neutral, but I think it could do with some copyediting on the "how it presents the information" front. nub :) 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5: stability

[edit]

I mean, it has 38 revisions. It is extremely stable. nub :) 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6a: illustration

[edit]

With this length, there needn't be much illustration; the two images (one in the infobox and one of a specific, relevant character in the subject's parent game) are fine for illustrating what needs to be illustrated. nub :) 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6b: media relevance

[edit]

The infobox image visually defines the subject, and the image of the character is relevant to the section it accompanies because what it represents is a point of discussion in the section. nub :) 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

[edit]

@Gommeh: This is, overall, a quaint article with an interesting subject. Apologies for my bluntness above, but I hope we can work through this article and make it the best it can be! Thanksya, nub :) 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the article looks much better now. I've passed over it a couple times more and I think I can say that this checkY passes GAN! Good job, and I wish you luck on your future Wikipedia endeavors! nub :) 19:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer review

[edit]


Translation into the Chinese Wikipedia

[edit]

The version September 11, 2025 at 06:44:15 was translated into the Chinese Wikipedia with the skipping of "Night Kingdom". --𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝐸𝑎𝑐ℎ ... 𝑁𝑒𝑥𝑡 19:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]