Talk:Serious Sam: Tormental/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: VickKiang (talk · contribs) 03:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this, more comments to come. VickKiang (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, I've pasted the article onto my grammar checker, and it seems the prose flows well, so criteria 1a is met, but for MoS lede and words to watch guidelines (1b), I'll need further look.

General comment: Sources (criteria 2a, 2b)

@IceWelder: This is just a general check; I haven't looked into if the refs support the claims. Are the following RS?

Optional The Escapist, considered to be situational, especially [between] October 2017 and July 2018, most content (except for Zero Punctuation) was written by volunteers without staff oversight and should be handled with care. Not sure how it is now. I can find their about us, but where are the editorial policies (apologies if I didn't find it). Also, is there a better ref?
Indie Games Plus isn't an RS at all, IMO. Iffy site, poor prose, no editorial policies, and very bad advertising or about us pages (the editors aren't writing in other RS).
Blue's News is the same- no editorial policies or about us pages.
Optional: Ref 14, 15, 16, 21, and 23 are SPS; it's optional, as the press releases are mundane (not requiring RS per criteria 2b), but could there be more independent ones?
Optional: With a WP page, Hardcore Gaming 101 is an RS. But per WP:VGRS, Head editor is Gamasutra author Kurt Kalata. Content written by him or Retro Gamer's John Szczepaniak is very reliable. All content is edited by Kalata before publishing and should be considered acceptable, but take additional care with claims made by other authors and in older articles. These two authors aren't the ones in this; caution could be needed, but it's still generally an RS, so either way, it's optional.

Other refs are RS. That's all for whether refs are RS now; I'll do a more in-depth read of the article soon. VickKiang (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, @VickKiang! To answer your points directly:

The Escapist was unreliable when (100% − 2) of its paid staff were fired. This was overturned in 2018 and the site has an editor-in-chief again. It should be good enough for uncontroversial material. The author also has a Bachelor's in journalism.

@IceWelder: It might be uncontroversial material, like gameplay releases (which I'm fine of), but a review falls under the criteria 2b IMHO in published opinion, and the reliability of this is dubious, but of course this is minor. ~~I can start a discussion on WP:VGRS if you think there should be more evaluation of this ref~~. VickKiang (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel this would hinder the GA process, please get a second opinion. I would hate to lose half of the reception section. IceWelder [✉] 08:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IceWelder: This is minor and I don't think it would hinder the GA process at all (I marked it as optional). I'll still pass anyway when I finished reviewing even if this ref is still kept. I'm only a bit worried about the IndieGames.com ref (see a discussion I started at WP:VG/RS) but as it's post-2018 and that the author seems to be qualified, it's fine, IMHO. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Games Plus is, surprisingly, considered reliable based on this and this discussion on WP:VG/RS: It is an independent continuation of the earlier RS IndieGames.com with largely the same staff and carried over all of the old site's content, including the one cited here. I found an archived version of the original article and chose to use that one instead.

@IceWelder: I'm still unsure, but where in the discussions is there a consensus that it's reliable? There's no consensus in the 2 discussions you linked, for the earlier discussion, (1 said it was marginally reliable, 1 said it was generaly reliable), ~~and it isn't listed anywhere in WP:VG/RS, I can't find earlier discussion of the RS IndieGames.com, see here. If I didn't find it (I just did a Command F search), please point out my mistake, thanks!~~ Update: Striken, fixed now, but added discussion at WP:VG/RS, thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IndieGames.com is listed under "Other reliable" on VG/RS. IceWelder [✉] 08:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Blue's News, I'm going strictly after WP:VG/RS, where it is classified as reliable. I have not had any issues with it in the past and it seems to have a long history of reliable output.

@IceWelder: I'm going to double down on my suggestion. The listing was based on just 1 (!) discussion, but could you have a look at its FAQ? It like a user-generated forum with moderation...? The only editorial control is [t]here are very few hard and fast rules. Here they are..., how is this an RS? I opened an entry at RSN, could you please comment if possible, and many thanks again!. VickKiang (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Striken, somehow didn't find this on WP:VG/RS, oops.~~

The primary sources are unfortunately required to fill some gaps. The coverage in secondary sources is enough to pass GNG, but also spotty enough to leave out some important details.
Hardcore Gaming 101 same as Blue's News: It may not be the absolute top-tier of sources but it is still considered reliable, and I it should be good enough for the claims made.

Fair enough. VickKiang (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IceWelder [✉] 08:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Gameplay

@IceWelder: No issues here. VickKiang (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Development

Optional: All checked, not many quibbles. IMHO, a very minor point (if I'm trying to nitpick) is that in infobox, the full names are cited using ref 1. However, in the development section (prose), the cited article (ref 9) didn't have full names. Of course, this is minor and optional, but IMHO maybe cite the ref 1 one more time after the sentence mentioning the names of the producer, composer..., but this is about as minor as I can think of, and don't matter much with GA 2b criteria. I'm still questioning 2 refs, Blue News (see RSN discussion in previous comment) and Indie Games Plus, otherwise, prose and refs are good. VickKiang (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Credits citation added. Indie Games Plus has since been replaced by the original IndieGames.com article. Blue's News should be reliable as it has been the same author for 26 years, which I also noted in the RSN discussion. IceWelder [✉] 11:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Optional (Note: Just not to be confusing, in quotation marks are verbatim from the WP article, in green text (tq) is text from refs.) The reception section first covers the first review from Cucchiarelli, then one from Nwosu, and subsequently the criticism for the Cucchiarelli. Maybe move the criticism sentence ("Cucchiarelli faulted several technical issues and saw the game as failing to be inventive" to a second paragraph, together with Nwosu's criticism: But it feels incredibly small in scope and gives way to tedium much quicker than its replayable structure should allow and that on weapons and upgrades that never reach the necessary level of absurdity to excite players to go another run. VickKiang (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added the extra criticism as requested, but I think it can stay as one paragraph for now as it is not terribly long. IceWelder [✉] 16:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No issues otherwise for reception- well cited with good flowing prose. A very optional POV of mine (no bearing with any GA criteria whatsoever, so you can ignore it, many thanks), I'd like to have a linking word or sentence (e.g., some elements of the game received criticism, however, or along the lines like that, without editoralising). Of course, this is so minor that I don't think it's required at all. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current transition to criticism is "He regarded X as ... but lamented that Y is ...", whereafter only criticism follows. I suppose there is not much I could summarize for a transition from two reviews without going into original interpretations. Just saying "there was criticism" feels a bit redundant to me. IceWelder [✉] 11:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found a RS according to WP:VG/RS, which had 3 discussions under the Polish name Gryonline. Covers the game very quickly, with short comments, critiquing the visuals but praising the gameplay (Tormental is a 3D game with rather simple and angular visuals. The game lacks advanced effects, however that does not matter during the gameplay, as it is fast and requires players to remain focused at all times), we could add it to the reception section (I know this review isn't great, but at least it could go together with the current 2, which is a low number IMHO). VickKiang (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While it is an RS, that particular source does not appear to be a review of the full game since it has been the same text since at least 2020. It also has no author attached, so I would rather leave it out of the reception section for now. IceWelder [✉] 11:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other

@IceWelder: These are all of my suggestions; thank you. On RSN, there seems to be strong consensus that Blue News is an RS (which I disagree, but will go with the consensus), no replies for Indie Games yet, but as that's only 1 ref, which is also backed up by another, should there be no consensus, IMHO a discussion on the talk page is fine. I don't think there's too many areas of improvement otherwise, though, so I'll pass the GA, thanks IceWelder for your work and time, especially for my tiny nitpicks, and have a nice day:) VickKiang (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·