Jump to content

Talk:The Last of Us Part II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 134.101.60.131 (talk) at 18:40, 7 November 2020 (→‎COULDN'T HAVE PLAYED THE GAME IN THAT SHORT TIME?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2020

Change genre from action-adventure to survival-horror. 24.18.22.118 (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please demonstrate a consensus for this change before making such an edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

You should change On Twitter, Druckmann also expressed disapproval at journalists mocking a comparison of The Last of Us Part II to the 1993 film Schindler's List, and Baker responded to a comment that "Video games are too long" with a quote from US president Theodore Roosevelt about critics being less valuable than creators to On Twitter, Druckmann also expressed disapproval at a journalist mocking a comparison of The Last of Us Part II to the 1993 film Schindler's List, and Baker responded to a comment of the same journalist that "Video games are too long" with a quote from US president Theodore Roosevelt about critics being less valuable than creators

In the way that is redacted, sounds like Neil argued against several journalists, when was only with Jason Schreier. And I think that is important to note that Troy Baker argued against the same journalist for context. 31.131.176.228 (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source is already in the article. This is a very simple change.  Done – Rhain ☔ 22:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2020

There are no citations or references present in the summary of this page. The following for example would need a citation (every single sentence needs a citation):

Development of The Last of Us Part II began in 2014, soon after the release of The Last of Us Remastered. Neil Druckmann returned as creative director, co-writing the story with Halley Gross. The game's themes of revenge and retribution were inspired by Druckmann's experiences growing up in Israel. Ashley Johnson reprises her role as Ellie, while Laura Bailey was cast as Abby Their performances included the simultaneous recording of motion and voice The developers pushed the technical capabilities of the PlayStation 4 during development Gustavo Santaolalla returned to compose and perform the score. Development reportedly included a crunch schedule of 12-hour workdays

Following some delays, partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, The Last of Us Part II was released on June 19, 2020 It was praised for its performances, characters, visual fidelity, and gameplay, though the narrative and the representation of a transgender character polarized critics and players. It was the subject of review bombing on Metacritic. Part II is one of the best-selling PlayStation 4 games and the fastest-selling PlayStation 4 exclusive, selling over four million units in its release weekend. SocialSurfer (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SocialSurfer, lead sections do not require citations, as they should be a summary of information that's in the body of the article. The body is where the citations for the claims in the lead are. See WP:CITELEAD. Popcornfud (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make (see also the above comment). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Last of Us Part II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ImaginesTigers (talk · contribs) 22:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there! I'm going to snag this one. You should have my full review (posted all at once) by Friday. ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff came up. Give me till tomorrow! ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm becoming a broken record at this point but things have, once again, come up. I'm really sorry! It's university stuff. Tomorrow by night time you will have the full review. ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The article is structurally sound, and mostly well-written. It is well-supported with a judicious use of references, and contains few glaring omissions. Regardless, I have some suggestions before we promote.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    From the lead: Part II is one of the best-selling PlayStation 4 games and the fastest-selling PlayStation 4 exclusive, selling over four million units in its release weekend. I'd recommend changing this to include the word 'selling' less. I also think the mention of Lev's criticism is not quite specific enough. A little more detail would be useful there, explaining (briefly) what problems critics had with Lev. This problem reappears in the criticism section of the article. Members of the transgender community does not feel entirely right — are all of the critics thereafter trans writers? There's been a lot of discussion about this in particular. Next up we have Audience response. As a section, I like most of what is there. I don't especially like the title, though. As noted within the section, these viewpoints constituted a minority of the game's overall playerbase. Framing it purely as the audience seems strange to me. It also focuses on the Jason Schreier/Schindler's List thing. To be clear, neither he, nor Druckmann, nor Baker can really be conceived of as this game's "audience".
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    There are a few suspicious references. Namely [3] and [10] (guides). Try and find some alternatives for those.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    I'm marking this as in progress because I think they're tied to the issues surrounding "Audience response". I do also wonder if the coverage of crunch isn't sufficient; it might warrant its own section with Development. There has been a lot of discussion outside of Schreier's initial report. Might be worth looking into.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    The game's positive and negative reception is duly considered; I think there are some issues with the sharpness/structuring of the criticism, though.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    As of November 1, page is stable. I won't include page views because the game is still fairly new, and is likely to be inflated.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Review in progress.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pending improvements!


I'll get to the images tomorrow! After you've implemented those changes, I'll go through the article myself and make some small changes here and there to wording/sentences; given that the article might change a little, I always leave that to the end. A pretty good article overall, and looking forward to hearing from you! ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, ImaginesTigers. I've made a few changes to the article, but I wanted to respond to a few of your points here:
  • I'm not sure that adding more detail about Lev to the lead is suitable; the lead is meant to be a summary, after all, and the specific information can be found within the article. Adding too much specific detail would feel like undue weight, as it only consists of one paragraph in the article itself.
  • "Members of the transgender community" does not refer to the critics, it refers to members of the community, as mentioned in the sources (specifically NBC News).
  • The two guides you refer to are from reliable sources, and are allowed to be used per WP:VG/RS.
  • I've added an extra sentence about Druckmann's response to crunch, but I'm not sure what else could be added; a lot of sites covered the crunch, but none actually provided additional coverage outside of Schreier's report.
Thanks again. Let me know if you have any other concerns. – Rhain ☔ 00:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Neil Druckmann
Neil Druckmann

Improved to Good Article status by Rhain (talk). Self-nominated at 02:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

COULDN'T HAVE PLAYED THE GAME IN THAT SHORT TIME?

Nonsense. Lets Plays are a thing since 20 years and people do not need to play a game anymore to judge it. Metacritic also blocked any review from beeing puplished thats not a 4 star rating at least for WEEKS. No word about that either? The 5 Stars/90%+ ratings miss also some crucial (crucial while honest...) mediocre ratings (IGN japan 70% WHERE?????????????????) This wiki exist for the people and to display facts. This onesided joke here isn't one nor another. Get your shit together. 134.101.60.131 (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Last_of_Us_Part_II&oldid=987541948"