Talk:Necromorphs

Requested move 27 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) --Regards,  KB~Abhiimanyu7  talk  08:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Necromorph → Necromorphs – Maybe a minor issue, but they are typically spoken of as a group (i.e. "The Necromorphs") and have a shared purpose and even a hivemind. Given this, a plural name would seem to make more sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support - Yeah, definitely minor but I think you are right. This is like how we have Zombies in Resident Evil instead of "Zombie (Resident Evil character)" or something. Its about a group. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Support I don't feel strongly about this, but want to help other editors reach consensus and standardization. If someone does feel strongly against this, feel free to tag me to consider other objections. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

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.

GA review

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

Nominator: Boneless Pizza! (talk · contribs) 10:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Guyinblack25 (talk · contribs) 03:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Greetings. I've started reviewing the article. After a cursory look, the article appears to be in good shape; only some relatively minor grammar issues stood out to me. I will post comments after I've finished a full review. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC))

Hi! Many thanks 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

May 9 review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I addressed the grammar issues I saw while reviewing. However, there's a run-on in the first paragraph of the "Characteristics" section. I recommend splitting the sentence up so it is more readable and the ideas are adequately conveyed.

   "They are highly aggressive reanimated undead creatures which originate from the strange powers exhibited by alien artifacts known as the Markers emitted through signals, which cause paranoia and hallucinations to living beings in its vicinity, which leads them to engage in strange behavior or violently attack each other."

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Reference #20 (Monsters in Gaming on IGN by Schedeen, Jesse) is not using a Citation template like Template:Cite web. While the formatting looks the same, the templates make sure they remain uniform.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Several paragraphs have a citation used multiple times (i.e., the citation appears after different sentences within the paragraph), but the are no other references used for the paragraph. Because there are several other paragraphs that do use a single reference, it begs the question: why are those duplicated citations not combined so that the whole paragraph uses the single citation? If the whole paragraph relies on the single reference, the extraneous citations should be removed. If there is a sentence in the middle that isn't covered by that reference, the sentence should be cited to an appropriate reference or removed given the subject matter: the creative process/decisions of the developers. Alternatively, if the intent is to cite every sentence (which is a perfectly acceptable format), then that style should be applied to consistently throughout the article.

   • "Concept and design" section
     • First paragraph - has two identical citations
     • Fifth paragraph - has three identical citations
     • Sixth paragraph - has two identical citations
     • Seventh paragraph - has two identical citations
     • Eighth paragraph - has three identical citations
     • Ninth paragraph - has two sets of two identical citations
   • "Sound" section
     • First paragraph - has three identical citations
     • Second paragraph - has two identical citations
   • "Cut content" section
     • Second paragraph - has two identical citations

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Boneless Pizza!: The article is in good shape, save for the minor issues detailed above. The article will be able to pass easily after they are addressed. If you need an clarification or explanation on the issues, please let me know. I'll check back in a day or two to assess the progress. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC))

Guyinblack25 Adjusted the citations and I manage to split off the paragraph. Many thanks for reviewing. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

May 10 review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Issue addressed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Reference #20 (Monsters in Gaming on IGN by Schedeen, Jesse) is not using a Citation template, but the text is formatted properly. While this could result in mismatched formatting later, I don't believe this is cause to fail a GAN.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Issue addressed

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passing article. Good job. Please note the citation template comment for reference #20 for future reference. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC))