# Talk:Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 21:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll be looking after this GA review. It looks pretty good I'm pretty sure it will pass. I'll leave a ping once I notice any issues.Tintor2 (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Per wp:lead I recommend expanding a bit the second paragraph at least with general information about the reception due to how much it covers. Just one sentence would be enough
Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I would recommend adding a nonfree image to make the gameplay easier to expand. If there are size issues, I would suggest merging the two sections.
Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Is the plot complete or the game was discontiued? It looks like it ended in a cliffhanger. Then again, I've no knowledge of the game. If that's how it ends I would add that "the narrative/game ends with"
Episodic release, but it's one of those things where they add bits and pieces all the time. I haven't played it for a while, so I don't know if there is a specific end point, nor if this is fully up to date Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Reference 8 further expands on the developer's intentions which seems quite useful to why all the actor are there.
The last paragraph from reception could use a contrasting introduction like. "Despite negative reviews, the game attracted awards"
@Lee Vilenski: Other than that, I found no other issues with the article. Revise this and I'll gladly pass it.Tintor2 (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

1.Well written:
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2.Verifiable with no original research:
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
all inline 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;
it contains no original research; and
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:
it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Good job. Pass.Tintor2 (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I have added a cleanup tag to the 'Plot' section of the article as it is devoid of references, which seems unusual for a GA. In my opinion this article could be enhanced if anyone could possibly cite several in-line references for it. Many thanks- VickKiang (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)