Talk:SpellForce 3

Pre-GAN issues

• Neither the lede nor the gameplay opening actually describe what the game is about, how it plays, and what is important about it (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll also add that the development section is a bit lacklustre. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I'll work on that tomorrow. Regards SoWhy 17:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Czar and Anarchyte: I expanded both sections now, could you take another look what's missing? Thanks for your help in advance, it's my first time trying to create a good article and I appreciate all the help I can get. Regards SoWhy 11:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Think of how a general audience would read this article, e.g., if someone was familiar with video games as you likely are with archery (likely acquainted but knowing no details). I'd want to know what the game was about in the first few sentences (of both the lede and Gameplay)—what's the point and what happens? Is it about story or exploration or teamwork or what? Then I'd look at the detail and ask whether knowing the Alt-key menu is important for understanding the topic, or if it is more trivia. Some of that insider stuff fits better on Wikia or wikis with a different scope.
• For Reception section composition, this guide has some good suggestions. Also claims like "mostly positive" reviews need sourcing, as they're likely to be challenged. Metacritic puts its reception as "mixed"/"average". Similar tips at WP:VGG#Reception
• Re: "stylized as" in the lede, WP:VGG#Lede
• Development section can be tightened into longer paragraphs with points that flow into each other and less emphasis on specific dates (per general audience point). The section might have been written from news posts with emphasis on announcement/release dates, but remember the emphasis of those news stories does not match the long-view perspective of an encyclopedia.
• I'd check some of these sources against the video game reliable sources list and custom Google search. I imagine there are better refs for some of the basic claims cited.
• Otherwise it's clear that a lot of work has gone into this. Nice going so far

czar 20:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look over it tonight and leave comments below. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Thanks for your help, I'll look forward to your comments. No rush though. I tried to address most of the things you mentioned @Czar but there is probably some more to do. I'm a bit struggling on how to rewrite the reception section, maybe the next days will bring some clarity. As usual, I appreciate more feedback if you find the time. Regards SoWhy 21:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Re: Reception, I'd start by stacking the refs. If reviewers predominantly shared a certain thought about the game, write "multiple reviewers thought" and add multiple refs to the end of the idea. Follow that with examples that illustrate or expand upon what the multiple reviewers pinpointed. Take the quoted passages and get to the core essence—is the point to make a quotable quip (and if so what is its relevance to us?) or to make an underlying point about what makes the game interesting in context of the larger history of games? Some conclusions about the game do not need to be attributed as opinion if they merely state fact (such as something being bugged or anything that doesn't trade in feelings). And then group the info vigorously by topic so that each sentence flows into the next. (If the link was lost above, Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections is particularly helpful, with examples.) czar 01:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: I haven't had as much time as I'd have liked recently, so here are some comments. I may add to this list after they're addressed.

• role-playing / real-time strategy hybrid video game Do we need the "/" here? Wouldn't it be smoother to write "real time strategy role playing game"?
• Is the appearance of the mage necessary in the lead?
• Spellforce 3 is the. SP3 isn't in italics.
• Unless I'm missing something, the first paragraph of gameplay doesn't explain what the skirmish mode is.
• Players take control of a single character or a group of characters depending on the level in question which can be sent to different parts of the map using the mouse to click the desired place on the map. I think this can be shortened. I'm not entirely sure what it's trying to convey. Depending on the level, players assume control of either a single character or a group which can be sent to different places on the map. It's pretty self explanatory that a computer game would use the mouse, so I don't think we need to mention it.
• I think the next few sentences about hotkeys and mouse usage could be merged. The mouse, along with hotkeys, can be used to instruct the characters in various ways, such as who to attack.
• If you decide to disregard the idea above: used for other command, such. "command" needs an "s".
• holding the a certain will ??
• like more damage → such as increased damage
• Each companion additionally → Additionally, each companion. I think this flows better.
• three spells and/or auras at the same time, the → three spells and/or auras, the
• little pictograms. Aren't pictograms, by nature, little?
• on other maps he can control a whole army of units. Don't use "he".
• If a map allows the player to control an army, they will either take over an already existing base or build a new one. Not sure what this means, and reading on doesn't give any indication.

Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Thanks for the suggestions, I made the changes. I moved the genre description to a separate sentence. Still considering that part though. Thanks for all the feedback so far and don't worry about not having more time. @Czar: Yeah, I read the essay, I just didn't have the required inspiration yet to approach that section. Regards SoWhy 13:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: I completely rewrote the review section, trying to follow the essay you linked to. I'd be grateful if you could take another look. Regards SoWhy 16:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Much better! Be careful with generalizations, though.

Reviewers praised the attention to details and the storytelling while some criticized the voice acting and technical aspects

Any sentence in any article that can be easily challenged needs a direct reference. In this case, unless you have a single, authoritative source that asserts this, you'll need to cite each of the reviewers that assert this. And constructions such as "Reviewers praised the attention..." are open-ended but "Most critics lauded", "was generally considered a success", "multiplayer options received little discussion" are not. (We cannot discern the entire field of criticism or what "most" critics think, as obvious though it may be. We depend on reliable sources to have command of the field for those assertions.) Instead get less specific: cast as "Critics lauded", citing the examples. There are a lot of reviews I would strike here. What makes the opinion of Mammoth Gamers or SelectButton worth noting? Looks like hobbyist blogs to me. Better off with a shorter section and reliable reviews (WP:VG/RS) than to drag out opinions from an unreliable press. I also personally recommend striking reviewer names whenever possible unless the reviewer herself is wikilinked and important. Most often the reviews are treated as belonging to the publication, not the reviewer. I think most of the short quotes can be paraphrased without losing their sentiment too. We're trained to think of these kind of quotes as the flavor of the review, but if you try to paraphrase the sentiment holistically, you can often put the reviewer's thoughts more succinctly for our purposes. czar 15:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. I'll have a look tomorrow. Regards SoWhy 20:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: First off, thanks against for all your help so far, although if that is the pre-GAN review, I shudder to think what will follow if and when a GA review is actually taking place. I tossed out those sources and (hopefully) made the necessary changes based on your suggestions. Since VG/RS is somewhat incomplete, can you maybe point out other sources you think should be removed? Regards SoWhy 16:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

:) Usually pre-GAN comments are subsumed into the actual review but after the above, there won't be much left for the GA review! especially since you've done an excellent job with everything discussed so far. Sources that don't strike me as having editorial pedigree or reputation for reliability: GameSpace, Capsule Computers, WCCF Tech, TechRaptor, GameCrate, Darkstation, Game Debate. Not familiar with the pcgames.de (physical mag) but looks okay and didn't get feedback from anyone last time I asked about 4Players.de. Looks like your German is better than mine so perhaps you'd have some advice on that one czar 16:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the RS question at VG/RS talk, I'll comment there. I agree on some, although WCCFTech and TechRaptor seem reliable enough to me (the latter mainly received backlash because of GamerGate at VG/RS talk but some did agree that their recent stuff might be reliable. 4Players is owned by de:Computec Media Group, who also owns PC Games, so I think they should be reliable (Computec owns a number of magazines and websites, such as LinuxUser and Linux Magazine). Regards SoWhy 17:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: Okay, I have removed GameSpace, Capsule Computers, Darkstation and Game Debate. For WCCFTech I'd like to wait for the VG/RS talk to finish and I think TechRaptor is fine as situational in this case. The consensus for GameCrate was situational as well and I think the review in this case is acceptable but I will not fight about it if this is criticized. Maybe a third opinion might a be helpful (pinging @Anarchyte)? Regards SoWhy 14:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but for TechRaptor, this active discussion shows a consensus opposite your conclusion (also, as mentioned there, "situational" is a deprecated designation—either a site has editorial process and thus reliability or it doesn't) czar 02:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about GameCrate. Most of the authors' bios are like "I like video games and I've been writing for x years". With that said, it is owned by Newegg. I've noticed that in the article, all uses of GameCrate are backed up with another source (at least). Perhaps it's best to remove it or create a formal discussion at WP:VG/RS (been a year since the last). Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: Well, as Ferret put it, there might be a case there to separate reviews under the old staff from those under the new one (hence the "situational"). But I will listen to consensus if that's it.

@Anarchyte: Fair enough. Discussions seem quit slow at VG/RS talk at the moment and I already raised multiple sites there, so I probably shouldn't start more discussions right now, lest the mob lynches me Regards SoWhy 08:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

"Situational" in that usage applies to any site: generally do not accept a site as reliable for statements of fact until it is proven to have editorial process or pedigree, with any exceptions specifically argued (e.g., an expert-written self-published source cited for uncontroversial, minor detail not covered anywhere else). But even in those cases, a plainly reliable source is preferable. It's fine to let this play out at WPVG/RS as you wish, but the sources in question are only being used for opinion statements, no? The Gameplay & Dev are sourced reliably and there are plenty of other sources already in use in the Reception. Question is whether the article is better or worse for having more color commentary from potentially/likely unreliable sources as opposed to tighter, more trustworthy prose. But that's the last I have to say on that topic czar 10:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: No worries, I understand the "less sources but better instead of more sources but worse" approach and I had already removed both GameCrate and TechRaptor from the article. Again, your help with all this was and is invaluable and I hope I haven't annoyed you too much with my constant questions :) Regards SoWhy 10:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Images

I fail to see how the character creation image and the image in the reception section pass Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#8. The character creation screen can be adequately described in the text and is pretty standard as far as character creation processes go. The image doesn't tell us anything text cannot. As for the image in the reception section, the critics did not go into any particular details on their comments of the graphics, so the image is not needed to convey a specific concept to the reader. Help me understand why omitting the images would be detrimental to a reader's understanding of either passage. TarkusAB^talk 16:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: I just left you a message before I saw this one. I got to run now but I will reply later. Regards SoWhy 17:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: I'll concede that the first on, the character creation, can be disputed whether this is really necessary. I think it is because while the text can describe the selection process, only the screenshot will allow readers not familiar with the game understand what exactly can be customized and what not. If, however, in the GAN review (if and when it takes places) the reviewer feels that this should be removed, I will comply.

The latter one, I think, is definitely necessary. Words cannot adequately describe the level of visual detail and the different kinds of settings as well as the improved realism without actually seeing an example of the graphics and since this was a main point of praise by almost all critics (even those who bemoaned that it was overwhelming), it fits perfectly in the reception section. Regards SoWhy 18:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that the character creation screen should go. Neutral on the other one as I agree with arguments from both sides. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SpellForce 3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nomader (talk · contribs) 19:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I plan on completing this review, I'll be starting likely tomorrow or the next day. Nomader (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Really well done overall, on hold until a few remaining issues are addressed.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Still working on this section. I've made specific notes below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   One website flagged on the copypvio detector, but obvious that it's a copy from Wikipedia and not the other way around.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I'm usually wary of having an article with two non-free screenshots in it, but you do have a rationale that makes sense for the reception one (which specifically highlights they dynamic lighting which is mentioned in that section). I lean towards the side of it being okay to keep in for that reason, but I could see an argument to the contrary. For now, I won't have it hold up the nom.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Have a bunch of prose edits which I've listed below here to do and I'm still going to make a pass at the plot section today. For now, it's on hold but really great work! Nomader (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

   Updating from hold to pass, well done. Nomader (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting this now, but I may be adding to it later tonight as well. General edits are below followed by criteria checklist.

• The character creation image seems completely unneeded. Per NFCCP#8, there's no way that the screenshot is needed.
• The source for the first sentence of gameplay describes it as "the RPG section" and the "skirmish section", not campaign. Any chance you could add a different source to back the naming?
• The Eurogamer source describes it as "3 of 6 talent trees", but the prose says 4 trees. Did it get updated?
• Is there a source for the five attributes?
• Experience should be explained, or at a minimum wikilinked to Experience point.
• The gry-online piece does not seem to verify the "spells, auras, and passive" section unless I missed it somehow because Google Translate stinks.
• The plot section needs to be sourced. You can use the game itself if sources don't talk about the plot in detail (see Halo 3 for an example here)

I'm still going through but that's all I've had time for for now, so far. Gotta get back to real life work. I'll finish up the review tonight/tomorrow. Nomader (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so very much for starting this, I had almost lost hope that someone would review it. I'll check your notes tomorrow and make the necessary fixes. Regards SoWhy 20:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Going to be a tomorrow during the day thing instead. And no worries! You should never have to wait that long. Nomader (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I waited two months, I can wait another two days. Fixes so far based on your list:

• The character creation image seems completely unneeded. Per NFCCP#8, there's no way that the screenshot is needed.

Y

• The source for the first sentence of gameplay describes it as "the RPG section" and the "skirmish section", not campaign. Any chance you could add a different source to back the naming?

Y Added another soruce (already in the article)

Perfect, thanks! Nomader (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• The Eurogamer source describes it as "3 of 6 talent trees", but the prose says 4 trees. Did it get updated?

* The player can choose three different skill trees when starting but all player characters possess the "Leadership" skill tree (see here), so it's three skill trees you choose plus one that all characters have. I tried to clarify this.

Think that works. Nomader (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Is there a source for the five attributes?

? Just the game itself which I added to the article. Is this sufficient?

I think that's fine for now. Obviously prefer to do that as little as possible but it's fine in a pinch. Nomader (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Experience should be explained, or at a minimum wikilinked to Experience point.

Y

• The gry-online piece does not seem to verify the "spells, auras, and passive" section unless I missed it somehow because Google Translate stinks.

? The GTranslate for this text is spells, passive modifiers or special battle orders ([1]), not sure how exact this translation is. Unfortunately, I cannot find any English source for this but I could (additionally) source it to the game itself

Hrm, it's probably just a translation change (different wording in a different language). Keep that ref but add one from the game itself too. Nomader (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• The plot section needs to be sourced. You can use the game itself if sources don't talk about the plot in detail (see Halo 3 for an example here)

? Now I'm confused... I tried to follow other RTS examples like Age of Empires II which also is a FA and has no sources for the plot and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Sourcing and quotations explicitly says "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary."

Really interesting. It looks like Age of Empires II does it that way while Halo 3 and Final Fantasy X do plot citations. But for the purposes of a GAN, I think you're just fine-- thanks for flagging me on the policy here! Nomader (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Regards SoWhy 07:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Responded to your comments above. Doing the full review in a sec here. Nomader (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• There's a sentence in here that's a bit confusing: "SpellForce 3 is the third full and the ninth overall release in the SpellForce video game series and the first entry in the series since 2014's SpellForce 2: Demons of the Past, itself only an expansion to 2006's SpellForce 2: Shadow Wars (the last full entry in the series)." This needs to be changed a bit because I had to read it a few times to really get it-- but I'm kind of flummoxed at how to reword. I'll think overnight about it.
• "The plot serves as a prequel to the first game, the 2003 SpellForce: The Order of Dawn, depicting the events that lead to the creation of The Circle of mages whose actions were the basis for the first game's story." should be changed a bit to: "The plot serves as a prequel to the first game, SpellForce: The Order of Dawn, depicting events that lead to the creation of The Circle of mages whose actions were the basis for Order of Dawn." Or something along those lines. Also here-- is it "The Circle" or "The Circle of Mages"? That capitalization seems off to me.
• Say "construct" buildings instead of "build buildings"
• Say "to create" instead of "to build" (repeating words in the sentence)
• The last sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is a run-on sentence. Should be split in two and

Gameplay

• I think there's one main problem with this section: it mentions things like "real-time strategy mode" and some other kind of mode, but having never played the game, I understand the component parts but not what it is as a whole. The first paragraph should talk about the RTS vs. RPG section a bit and how the game actually works in a summary style. I've added prose corrections below, but take a crack at adding that too.
• Not necessarily a fan of the semi-colon usage here. I'd make it a period and a new sentence instead.
• I'd say "Both modes" instead of "both the campaign mode and the skirmish mode" here as it'll cut down a little bit on the reptition.
• I'd cut down a little bit the last sentence of the first paragraph. Maybe instead: "Skirmish mode also allows the player to share the responsibilities of managing a single race with other people." Try it out and see if it works-- you can add the list in at the end if it does but I think it gets a bit game guidey if we go too far into it there.
• "In the campaign mode, players can, after a short tutorial playing another character, create their own character, choosing between male and female as well as several body, hair and color styles." Change it to something like: "Players can create their own character in the campaign mode, and are able to customize their gender and appearance."
• "They can also choose which skills they want to pursue, allowing them to pick three different skill trees, depending on the chosen fighting style (melee, ranged, magic etc.)" should be changed to something like: "Characters can use three different skill trees that depend on their fighting style." -- I think the sentence runs on a little too long here and could be cut a bit, but if you don't make the change then I'm still okay with it.
• What does the leadership skill tree do? Is there a reason they all have it?
• Thus should have a comma after it.
• Do you have a source for the world map sentence?
• Ditto for the sentence afterwards.
• Same for teleportation.
• Writing about it here, the whole godstones section seems super-duper detailed. Is it a necessary detail to understand the gameplay of the game?

Plot

• Dwarfs vs Dwarves "-- check the nomenclature here. "Dwarfs" is what Disney always used while "Dwarves is usually what it is in fantasy settings like Lord of the Rings.
• The plot section overall needs to be cleaned up-- it's very "in-universe" heavy and dense. I'm going to be going through later today and making specific copyedit suggestions for the section that are unrelated to the sourcing I mentioned before.

Development

• The passive voice of the "Although" sentence feels really awkward to me. Maybe restructure it to: SpellForce 3 was the first game from Grimlore Games, although the studio consisted of a number of experienced programmers, designers and graphic artists, who worked on titles like The Settlers II, Knights and Merchants: The Shattered Kingdom and SpellForce 2.[14]

"While THQ Nordic announced in May 2016 that SpellForce 3 will be released in 2016, the release date was later changed to 7 December 2017, a year later than originally announced." Uses two tenses. Should say instead: "While THQ Nordic announced that Spellforce 3 would be released in 2016, the release date was later changed to 7 December 2017, a year later than originally planned."

Reception

Watch out for weasel words -- critics should be defined if it's only one person saying it instead of "some people say" kinds of notes.

• "Upon release, customers and critics alike criticized the number of bugs still left in the final release." Uses release twice in one sentence. Instead try: "Upon release, customers and critics alike criticized the number of bugs in the game."
• Instead of "at one time" say "at one point"-- one time is a bit longer term and you're really referring to one day here.
• "Within 14 days of release, 21 patches had been released." Again reusing a word here-- I'd suggest: "Within 14 days of release, 21 patches had been issued by Grimlore Games." Wikilink to the patches article as well too.
• Get rid of all of the "the"s in the following part: "the settings and the lighting effects".
• Get rid of "Which they considered more realistic than SpellForce 2"-- don't think that's a huge claim and the Wild Hunt comparison is more apt.
• Instead of "some critics bemoaned", say "GameSpot" -- you only use one source there.
• "The soundtrack of SpellForce 3 was considered to fit well and helped with setting the game's atmosphere." To replace the first sentence of the soundtrack section.
• "Help" to "helped" in the next sentence.
• "With some considering" -- use a specific reviewer here instead of just saying "some people".
• "With some considering the voice actors" ..... "and that at least one voice actor". With some should be defined as a reviewer or two. At least one voice actor-- should be defined as well (if it is in the review).
• "PC Gamer for example" remove "For example"
• "Others however considered" Remove "others" and say who said it.
• "Reviewers also noted" Say who noted.
• "The combination".... I'm much more okay with not defining the reviewers in this section as you're sourcing them to a bunch of different reviews.
• "Others expressed surprise" -- define the reviewer here.
• "likening to a beta" -- should be "likening it to a beta"

@Nomader: Thanks for the review so far, I made all the changes. Most of the wording comes from the fact that I had more sources before Czar advised me to cull a number of those (see the talk page's "Pre-GAN" section). As for "dwarves" vs. "dwarfs", I was actually using "dwarfs" because that's how Terry Pratchett used to write it. But the game uses the "dwarves" version so I changed it. Regards SoWhy 19:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nomader: Lead fixes done. I split the first sentence you mentioned in two, that should take care of it. Unfortunately, my native language favors long sentences with multiple clauses and subclauses, so sometimes I write English sentences that are longer than a native speaker might. Eagerly awaiting what else I can fix. Regards SoWhy 19:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: We're definitely getting there. Added some notes for the gameplay section. Nomader (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Regards SoWhy 13:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Ah we're getting so close! I think it's a huge improvement, but with the gameplay section, I'd like one last edit-- you talk about the game how it's a role-playing RTS hybrid, but what's the point of a level? What's the goal of this construction and stuff? Specifically-- what are you trying to do with the gameplay? Nomader (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...I'll have a look at it again tomorrow with fresh eyes. I'm confident I can whip something up once I had some sleep (living at UTC+2). Regards SoWhy 20:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nomader: Thanks again for all your suggestions. I tried to clarify the section some more but I might need some more details on what to improve. Regards SoWhy 09:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Hey SoWhy, I think I was looking at this way too late and too granular. I re-read the section and it works great now with the new first paragraph. I don't have any other concerns here-- terrific work and thanks for being so responsive. I have a few more notes just about the plot section that I've put below.

• "Noria, alongside his companions – siblings Anselm and Gwen and young Betrand – manages to find Isamo about to execute his child, who was trying to stop their father." Pronoun usage here is a tiny bit confusing. Is this referring to Isamo's child or Noria's child? Think it should be clarified a little bit here-- right now, I'm not sure who's father or who's child it is.
• After you fix this one issue, I'll approve it as a GA! Nomader (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

  Well, Tahar (Isamo's child) can be both male and female, so I was using "they" for it. Hence the confusion. I took your suggestion to make the whole paragraph more concise. I hope it's clear now. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Perfect. I added "an action" and a comma to one paragraph of the plot (diff here: [2]). There's one more "their" in the last paragraph of the plot section's first sentence which is unclear, but I'm going to go ahead and pass this article now with the expectation that you'll fix the one edit as you've done so well with the others. Absolutely phenomenal work, SoWhy. Nomader (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)