# Talk:Serious Sam: The Random Encounter

This review is transcluded from Talk:Serious Sam: The Random Encounter/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 16:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lead

"Critics both lauded and disliked" makes it sound like the same critics expressed both feelings. Rephrase to "The combat system was given a mixed response, with some critics calling it innovative."
Change to "The game's tone, visuals, and sound were well received."
Gameplay

"shotguns have an adjustable radius in which they automatically aim, although enemies shot at closer range receive more damage" rephrase to "shotguns have an adjustable radius in which they automatically aim, doing more damage to enemies at close range"
Development and release

Consider indicating Serious Sam 3 as an FPS when you first introduce it, and then remove "(the genre of the main Serious Sam entries)"
Reception

"Some critics felt that The Random Encounter's concept was a good fit for the Serious Sam series" - Who?
"Others pointed out that the game's humour was well aligned to that of the rest of the series." - Who?
Images

Images are fine, but cut out "The active timer has three seconds remaining." That's better for alt text, as people who can see the image can see this. Also cut the infobox caption to not mention the identity of the figure.
Strengthen the screenshot rationale just a soupçon.
Misc

Not something I'd hold against the article, but perhaps find alternatives to semicolons at times. It feels just a bit overused.
@IceWelder: Looks pretty good, just a few fixes to be made. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 17:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Abryn, thank you so much for the review! I have adjusted some text elements according to your comments. Could you possibly clarify which changes you are seeking for the screenshot's rationale? I am using {{Non-free use rationale video game screenshot}} with default parameters, though I now exchanged |Owner= with the more appropriate |Developer= and |Publisher= (and did the same for the cover). Regards, IceWelder [✉] 20:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I mean that it would be good to mention what specific use the image serves the article besides identifying it. Like, say, "it shows how the gameplay operates," but be a little more specific. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Abryn, I added |Description= with a brief explanation. Is this what you are looking for? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 21:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to pass it, but noting that what I mean is, say, a text description of what this screenshot is used to discuss. For instance, "shows the UI and the frenetic combat." - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm imrpoving the screenshot further, and maybe it will come closer to your idea of a good one. Regardless, thank you again for the great review! IceWelder [✉] 08:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)