Talk:The Sims: Livin' Large/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 07:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review! I typically prefer to make copyedits myself and only place comments here when I have questions, though of course as always you should feel free to change or discuss any edits you happen to disagree with. Looking forward to it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all done with my review! I do think it's necessary for the prose of the article to state the basic facts of the game's release (even though this info is also in the infobox). I also think it would be nice to add a sentence or two clarifying the expansion's role in bringing sex to the Sims. But otherwise everything looks great, and I think this can pass very soon! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as below for all your help - I've added in the suggested detail! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, well done on the article! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

"Development and release" is missing the actual original release -- it just explains the subsequent Mac port. I'd also suggest starting a new paragraph (i.e., inserting a paragraph break) for the release information. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Y[reply]

I made a few very minor copy edits, but the prose looks great. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Y Much appreciated![reply]

It might be worth noting that this expansion was the very first introduction of sex to the Sims. More information here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Y There's a few passing mentions in several sources, so I've decided to add a citation supporting the discussed point around the reappearance of the bed in TS4 from Polygon as a clearer RS.[reply]
Thanks, looks good! For context in terms of RS, ROMchip is a peer-reviweed scholarly journal, and the 'introduction' to the interview was written by a media studies scholar. The interview itself might need to be considered more carefully before using it as an RS, but I think the scholarly introduction is a high-quality source. I say that mostly to explain why I didn't mean to make you go hunting for other sources! The Polygon one works too. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both images have thorough and compelling non-free-use rationales. In particular I agree that the gameplay screenshot is encyclopedically very important: the whole expansion is about cosmetics and game objects, so it's valuable to have some kind of illustration of that. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Y Cheers![reply]

For my source check, I looked at cites 4, 7, 10, 12, and 16, as numbered in this diff. I made one small edit myself -- the article said fans contributed some assets including skins, but the source only mentioned skins, so I took out the "including" part. Otherwise, everything from the source check looks great! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Y Thanks![reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.