Talk:Crow Country

GA review

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.

---

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

Nominator: MidnightMayhem (talk · contribs) 05:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tarlby (talk · contribs) 19:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Tarlby

I've heard this game was pretty good. Expect me to begin soon!

Also, you started editing in March and already have a GA? Nice job! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tarlby Hi! Thank you so much for your detailed comments. I've just implemented the first round of changes and corrections based on your feedback. Hope it's not disruptive to do that before you're fully done reviewing. Please let me know if there's anything else that crops up. MidnightMayhem (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It's completely normal and expected for nominators to address objections before the reviewer is done looking at the article. Don't worry! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, thank you for the source check. I've made some improvements but not everything is done; I will come back to finish soon. MidnightMayhem (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tarlby: Okay, I think everything should be cleaned up now! If there are any other concerns, let me know and I will be sure to address them. MidnightMayhem (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@MidnightMayhem: Alright, aside from having to remove the Destructoid and Kotaku reviews, everything looks good now. Good job with this article, and nice working with you! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 06:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• There's not much here summarizing the development of the game.

 Done Expanded the lead with a second paragraph summarizing the design philosophy and moved the sentence about the visual style there. Also shifted some other text around.

• ...in search of its owner, and soon begins to uncover the dark secrets the park hides. -> ...in search of its owner, and uncovers the dark secrets the park hides. For conciseness.

 Done

Gameplay

• "Survival horror game" here is linked as "survival horror game", while the lead does it as "survival horror game".

 Done Unified as "survival horror game"

• Players can shoot while running, or lock into position to focus their aim. I was confused for a second what "lock into position" means until I figured it means standing still. I think it should just say the player can stand still to focus their aim (assuming this is true).

 Done This was a mistake from previous editors that I overlooked. You cannot move at all while shooting. I've fixed this and provided a source.

• The article flip flops between "players" and "the player" and should choose only one per MOS:VGGP.

 Done Unified as "players"

• ...Fine, Okay, Caution, Wounded and Critical. This sentence does not use an Oxford comma despite the lead using it. The use of Oxford commas must be consistent.

 Done

• ...can be replenished using bandages, medkits and antidotes. No Oxford comma.

 Done Also slightly reworded

• I would link save and health.

 Done

Plot

• Looks good.

Development and release

• Looks good.

Reception

• ...called the game "a true-to-form classic survival horror adventure", praised the setting and visual direction. They're praising the setting and visual direction.

 Done Also adjusted the wording here

• Destructoid should be linked.

 Done

• ...described the game's narrative as complete and richer ->...described the story as more complete and richer Grammar and more concise.

 Done

• Hurley noted the "rewarding" and "refreshingly unfamiliar" story and commended its "feeling of surprise and uncertainty". Bueno commended... These sentences both use "commended" which feels a li'l repetitive.

 Done Adjusted the wording

• Handley praised the game's narrative twists and satisfying conclusion, although finding it lacked... -> Handley praised the game's narrative twists and satisfying conclusion, but found it lacked...

 Done Adjusted the wording

• ...and balanced in difficulty, although found themselves stuck with some puzzles. -> ...and balanced in difficulty, but found themselves struggling with some. Grammar and conciseness.

 Done Adjusted the wording

• ...but opined that the game's combat and survival horror... -> ...but opined that the combat and survival horror... For conciseness.

 Done

• Fenlon described the game as "too easy", feeling that the game's combat was simple and the puzzles were unmemorable. -> Fenlon described the game as "too easy", calling the combat simple and the puzzles unmemorable. For conciseness.

 Done

• ...the enemies, resource management and combat... Missing Oxford comma.

 Done

• Crow Country surpassed 100,000 copies sold by October 2024, with the majority of sales on Steam... -> Crow Country sold 100,000 copies by October 2024, with the majority of sales on the distribution service Steam... You should also link Steam.

 Done

Spotcheck

I will check these sources based on this revision:

• 3 WP:VG/RS states that Destructoid sources should be used only if the author is considered reliable. I've looked around at what the author has worked on, and although they've done work for Gamespot in the past (over 2 years ago), their articles seem to just be guides and such, and the same goes for their work on other publications. Thus, I feel this should be removed.

Partly done I removed the citations to this source from the gameplay, but should the review also be removed?

Yes, the review should also be removed.

• 4 This nor citation 5 says that the shotgun or flamethrower are optional weapons unlocked by completing puzzles. I also don't see where upgrades are mentioned and basically this entire part: Players also collect notes and diary entries scattered throughout the park, which provide hints for puzzles and reveal story details leading up to the events of the game. In safe rooms, players can view a notebook to see all notes collected so far, and save their game at a fireplace.

 Done Adjusted the sourcing and simplified descriptions to match. I think everything is covered now.

• 5 Fine aside from the above objection.
• 6
• 7 The five health states are not mentioned and neither are bear traps.

 Done Removed health states as simply writing "limited health" can cover this. Sourced the traps with a different review.

• 8 WP:VG/RS says Kotaku is considered unreliable past 2023 due to AI and content farming concerns, though this is not always the case.

Partly done Same for Destructoid, removed gameplay citations but can the review stay?

Yes, the review should also be removed.

• 9 free traversal around the park makes it sound like Exploration mode removes all puzzles, but the Guardian does not make this clear and I assume that this is not the case.

 Done Added other source to clarify this and adjusted wording

• 11
• 12 A recent discussion at WT:VG finds Source Gaming unreliable, but since this is an interview, I guess I'm willing to let this slide, though you should probably replace this.
• 13 The ability to freely aim, inspired by Resident Evil 4 (2005), was included to modernize the combat while staying true to early horror games. This sentence implies this was intended by the developer, which is the opposite of what he says in the source: But to be honest, it actually wasn't any kind of mission statement on my part, I just made the exact game I wanted to play...

 Done Adjusted the wording to more closely match what is said in the source

• 14 I do not know if this is reliable.

 Done I think it's okay. The site is run by former Waypoint staff, and that source was considered reliable pre-2023 per WP:VG/RS.

• 15
• 17 Does not say the game was released on Xbox Series X/S.

 Done Moved the Eurogamer source elsewhere, the Gematsu source covers the release dates on all platforms.

• 18
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• 28
• 29
• 30
• 31

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by HurricaneZeta (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that survival horror video game Crow Country features a game mode with no enemies?

• Source: ["Crow Country offers two modes of play: Survival and exploration. The latter removes any trace of the park's enemies so you can focus on exploration and puzzle solving." https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/crow-country-review-old-school-horror/1900-6418227/]

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by MidnightMayhem (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

MidnightMayhem (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC).

• This article is in good shape and eligible from the recent GA promotion. No evidence of copyvio. No QPQ needed. Hook is interesting enough and checks out in the article. Seems like we're good to go. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)