 | Aperture Desk Job is currently a Video games good article nominee. Nominated by Vacant0 (talk • contribs) at 14:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page. Short description: 2022 video game |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aperture Desk Job article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find video game sources: "Aperture Desk Job" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Aperture Desk Job/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 14:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 21:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this one soon. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Will let you know when I'm done, but some comments are below. Feel free to tick em if done or make comments as needed. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Sections
editHeadline
Gameplay
Synopsis
Development
Reception
- It's a bit light on actual reception. From what I can see, there's three generally reliable reviews: TheGamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, and PC Gamer, and these make the game comfortably notable but barely. Are there any other reliable review sources out there?
- I've tried looking for more reviews but these were the only ones that I was able to find.
- The Polygon and IGN sources are being misrepresented as reviews of the game when it's the authors reacting to the announcement trailer, which feels a little misleading.
- Gamepressure isn't praising the game's graphics, it's just saying it boasts a "similar graphic style" as previous Portal games. The site is reliable per WP:VG/S, but it feels clear the article is being written by someone that doesn't seem to have actually played the game, as no gameplay details are described.
- Steam user reviews are WP:USERG. Per WP:VG/REC, these are unreliable unless it's remarkable in secondary coverage. This probably should be removed unless the object of broader coverage.
- Per WP:VG/REC, the template is not necessary. Here it captures only one review, so its utility is quite low and should be removed.
- All Done.