Talk:Star Wars Jedi: Survivor

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 17, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Star Wars Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Star Wars To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the {{WikiProject Star Wars}} banner. Update the classification of articles in Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles and Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles.
Citing sources : Jedi, Sith
Cleanup : Remove any In-universe information at Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction.
Copyedit : Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..."
Stubs : Category:Star Wars stubs
Other : * See the things to do page
- Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

The Hunt: Mega Edition (0 participants)
Off-TV Play (1 participant)
The Citadel (2020 video game) (3 participants)
Muslim Massacre (video game) (5 participants)
101 Dalmatians: Escape from DeVil Manor (0 participants)
IndustryMasters (3 participants)
Screen Rant (7 participants)
Ohq (2 participants; relisted)
All India Gaming Federation (4 participants; relisted)
Marss (2 participants; relisted)
Samsora (2 participants; relisted)
Thomas Mahler (6 participants; relisted)
Los Ratones (5 participants; relisted)
SiGMA Group (11 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Star Wars Jedi: Survivor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: OceanHok (talk · contribs) 11:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: CooperCool23 (talk · contribs) 19:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Analysis

For this review we're gonna try to go by section to see just how well the Jedi Survivor article does at it's respective parts.

Infobox

All information in the infobox is within the main primary text. --COOPER COOL 23 user page 19:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory Text

It seems to clearly illustrate parts of the main primary text in a way that a general audience would be able to understand --COOPER COOL 23 user page 19:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Text

The text seems to illustrate all the points in and around the game in good depth. --COOPER COOL 23 user page 19:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reception & Sales Text

Good variety of publications and some good sources for the sales charts --COOPER COOL 23 user page 19:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Generally speaking all the sources in the primary text are well researched and reliable. --COOPER COOL 23 user page 19:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Style

Reads like an encyclopedic entry. There are also seemingly no spelling mistakes as far as i'm concerned --COOPER COOL 23 user page 19:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Conclusion

Everything presented seems to be of good article status. However I won't close this review quite yet because I wish to see how many other Wikipedians can give their opinions --COOPER COOL 23 user page 19:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After going through a quick skim (a very quick skim!), I haven't found any problems with the prose, linking, etc of note except for small nitpicks that'd probably fit for a featured article. Note that I haven't checked the sources as I assume you've done the required spotchecks (correct?). I'll be comfortable letting you pass this, @CooperCool23. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]