# Talk:Dragon Age: Inquisition

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meverett.umd.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Per recent discussions ([1] [2] [3]) on standalone accolades lists, I think List of accolades received by Dragon Age: Inquisition should be merged back into this article. The table is far too short to warrant a separate article per WP:SPLIT. The relevant guideline is at WP:VG/AWARDS. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Support. A separate accolades page is unnecessary. The game isn't really that well-received to begin with. OceanHok (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment I've gone ahead and copied the table back since it's short enough that it should be done regardless. As for individual publication awards that are still worth reintegrating in prose, I would suggest only major wins and not just nominations. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi OceanHok, I am currently working on a standalone article for Trespasser. When I am done, I intend to move the entirety of its plot summary into the article. I wonder if it will affect your proposal to have this article assessed for GA in any way.  Haleth (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
It should be fine. I don't see any problem with that. OceanHok (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI for anyone who is interested: Religion News and Christian Post and Reliable sources for fake news?. Eurogamer also runs on a contributor system with freelance writers, for e.g. this article here. The difference with Forbes compared to say Eurogamer, is that multiple editors have asserted in past discussions that Forbes doesn't place any of its contributors under any editorial oversight and so it may not be reliable as per the wording here. A general rule suggested by many editors is that the more likely a claim or news piece is controversial (especially if article is BLP), the more highly reliability of the cited source should be be scrutinized.Haleth (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You are not wrong, but we should always try to replace situational sources/primary sources with RS alternatives as much as we can, and if there is currently none, citing Softpedia is sufficient for now. Having 2 situational sources in a row doesn't help or add much when they are supporting the same content. Generally you only need one citation at the end of each sentence. OceanHok (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dragon Age: Inquisition/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 19:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This has been sitting around long enough. I'll hopefully be back with comments by Saturday next. If not, please ping. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@OceanHok: All in all, this is a very well written and sourced article. The only nitpick I had was with the use of quotes in Reception, and a single point of grammar in the Sequel section. I've already addressed those since they were fairly minor elements. I happily Pass this article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)