# Talk:NHL 17

The source linked from the claim that Tarasenko will be on the cover is not correct. The results of the cover vote will be announced 22 June at the NHL Awards in Las Vegas. --73.71.20.81 (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello all!
I'm Manfred von Karma, and I have reviewed NHL 17 upon its GA request on Talk:NHL 17/GA1.
Manfred (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:NHL 17/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Manfred von Karma (talk · contribs) 04:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I am Manfred von Karma, and below is a review of the article NHL 17 vs. the Wikipedia Good article criteria. I am the first reviewer to this article. To clarify, I am reviewing revision 21:21, April 2, 2017‎ 2600:1:c712:3eca:28f9:9e3:bc58:9437 (talk)‎ . . (27,755 bytes) (-68)‎ . . (Added content) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit).


### Immediate Failures Test
After analysation, I conclude that this article does not fall into the Immediate Failure category. The article isn't obvious garbage, and from what I can see from a quick check, there is no evidence of plagiarism or editor's notes. Yet, there is evidence of consistent vandalism. This wouldn't be considered immediate failure-level, though.


### NHL 17 vs. Stature of writing
NHL does not comply with Criteria 1 and therefore fails it.


#### Structure and flow
There are some sentence issues here and there -- some sentences are choppy and have no relation to their proceeding and succeeding counterparts (see Gameplay para. 1)


#### Complication of information
Information in this article is neither overly detailed or under-edited.


#### Spelling and grammar
Usually the first thing I do when I review articles is Ctrl+F ', and'. Editors need to fix cases like this, as ', and' appears fourteen times in this article, and is not grammatically correct.


#### Compliance with Manual of Style
There are some MoS-related issues in here. Namely, "Development and release" needs to be split into two sections, exact dates should not be present in the lead and information about the cover art should not be in the lead either.


### NHL 17 vs. Verifiability of writing
NHL 17 complies with Criteria 2 and therefore passes it.


#### Layout of references
NHL 17's references are well laid out and statements are referenced correctly.


#### Reliability of sources
All sources are perfectly reliable. Most references come from trustworthy new sites, and EA Sports' website itself.


#### Presence of original research
There is no original research or non-true facts in the article.


#### Presence of plagiarism
Through checking, there seems to be no plagiarised writing in the article.


### NHL 17 vs. Inclusiveness of writing
NHL 17 complies with Criteria 3 and therefore passes it.


#### Coverage of aspects of the topic
From what is present here, NHL 17 covers all aspects of a video game article except the Plot/Story section. Yet, from what I know, NHL 17 does not have any kind of discernible story, so this is ignored.


#### Inclusion of unnecessary detail
From the little I know about NHL 17, I can conclude that this article does not go too much into depth about unnecessary details.


### NHL 17 vs. Point of view of writing
NHL 17 complies with Criteria 4 and therefore passes it -- the POV of this article is neutral.


### NHL 17 vs. Stability of writing
NHL does not comply with Criteria 5 and therefore fails it -- from what I can see, vandalism is proficient in this article. There is continued vandalism from a very large period of time.


### NHL 17 vs. Visual components of writing
NHL 17 complies with Criteria 4 and therefore passes it -- the amount of images just passes.


### Criteria at a Glance
Cr. 1    ~ Major
Cr. 2    ~ Major
Cr. 3    ~ Major
Cr. 4    ~ Minor
Cr. 5    ~ Minor
Cr. 6    ~ Minor


### Final Verdict
ON HOLD

I don't believe this article is ready to be GA status as of yet. The article is a little short, and the Development and Release sections can't be stuck together. I will re-review NHL 17 on the 30th, and if no changes that pertain to this review are made, I will deny the GA request. If there are changes, a re-review will be completed. If you have a question, please plop it onto my talk page.
Manfred (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, just a notification here. I have gone through and tried my best to fix any issues that were listed. I'm hoping not too many choppy and badly placed sentences are there anymore and I have also fixed the comma issue. Exact dates and cover art info have been taken out of the lead. I wasn't able to expand on the game's development, though, as my resources for that were severely limited; I adjusted that section's title to "Promotion and release". Aria1561 (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Aria1561: I see can see immense improvement. I can relate with your troubles of finding resources about *NHL 17*'s development; I have looked as well. There is basically no E3 information at all. I am in a strange position here; there is lacking information but there is no way we can improve the article because such information has not been released. I've thus reached the conclusion that, to make up for the saddening lack of information about the game's development, editors can add a little bit more for the other sections. A good reference point for doing this is the article Forza Motorsport 4. The article does have a Development section, but it also expands greatly on other sections. Try to find some more reviews, some more little things about Gameplay. The article is simply too short right now to pass off a passed verdict. Thus: I'm placing this article ON HOLD again. For 7 days, again. This will also be the last time I do this.  Manfred (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Manfred von Karma: Just an update. I did find an interview with the game's lead producer which provided a good amount of information regarding the game's development. I added more gameplay info as well, though I will try to find a bit more before the deadline. Aria1561 (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Aria1561: That's great! I look forward to reviewing the new and improved article. Manfred (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Aria1561: This article looks and is great. It fulfils all of the criteria and more, and in doing so, earns it its rightful place as a GA-status article. All the issues I had earlier have been fixed. The GA process may take between 5-10 minutes.
@Manfred von Karma: Thank you for reviewing this! Aria1561 (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)