Jump to content

Talk:AM2R/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cognissonance (talk · contribs) 18:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna review a smaller article now. Await the review soon. Cognissonance (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • "The controls were changed to be more rigid, to be more in line with" — Improve flow: "The controls were changed to be more rigid, in line with".
  •  Done
  • "Video game journalists liked the game" — Replace "liked" with "appreciated" for a less informal reading.
  •  Done
  • Mention the criticism.
  •  Done The reason I didn't do this was that only a single source I found criticized the game, but I guess it makes sense to note that not everyone thought the game was flawless.

Infobox

[edit]
  • "for the game" is implied, and not necessary.
  •  Done

Content

[edit]
  • "The game's controls are more rigid than the original's" — Improve prose: "The game's controls are more rigid than those of the original".
  •  Done
  • "The Metroids the player fight" — Fix grammar: "The Metroids the player fights".
  •  Done Oh man, I think I confused myself with the mix of the plural Metroids and singular player
  • "having new techniques used in battle" — Minimize repetition: "including new techniques used in battle".
  •  Done

Development and release

[edit]
  • "with modern gameplay, with an in-game minimap rather than with a physical map on one's lap, and with" — Remove the two last uses of "with".
  •  Done
  •  Done
  •  Done
  •  Done
  • "new enemies and areas not appearing in other Metroid games" — Improve prose: "new enemies and areas unrelated to other Metroid games".
  •  Done
  • "While the games' first areas" — Fix punctuation: "While the game's first areas".
  •  Done
  • "later areas were expanded and introduced new elements, and featured" — Replace "and featured" with "featuring" to minimize repetition of the word "and".
  •  Done
  • "This, along with progressively darker" — Minimize repetition of the word "progressively": "This, along with increasingly darker".
  •  Done
  • "as everyone was just working" — Remove "just" for a more straightforward and formal reading.
  •  Done
  • "new builds easier to make, making the development progress as a whole go faster" — Improve prose and minimize repetition: "new builds easier to make, leaving the development progress in a more expedient and productive state".
  •  Done
  • "to give it more personality" — Correction: "which was said to give it more personality".
  •  Done, sort of - the point of this sentence is that Guasti intended to give it more personality.
  • "Guasti has said that he still plans" and "development has ended" need to use the past tense.
  •  Done
  • "He did however release the game's" — Remove "game's" to minimize repetition.
  •  Done

Reception

[edit]
  • The section needs to use more varied language, like "endorsed", "praised", "lauded" and "commended" as well as the examples "[author] of [publication]", "Writing for [publication], [author] considered" and "[publication]'s [author]" instead of repeating "[author] at [publication]". The section could also do well with using the past tense.
  • Tried my best, but unsure if it's good enough. If not, further feedback would be appreciated.
  • "Several journalists have enjoyed the game:" — The section works better as a simple compilation of reviews, without a prefix.
  •  Done
  • Is it "win conditions" or "wind conditions"? Also, is this the only criticism made about the game?
  • It's win conditions, as in the conditions the player needs to meet in order to win. I don't know if this is too jargony or otherwise unclear. And yes, I believe so - since this wasn't a commercial release, but an unusually high quality fan production, I guess journalists' main reaction was of pleasant surprise. Everyone just seems to think it's cool that Guasti put a lot of effort into it without getting paid.

Overall

[edit]
  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.
    a (reference section): b (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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall: Were it not for the noticeable shortcomings in prose, I would've given this an immediate pass. Love this little thing.
    Pass/Fail:
    @IDV: Cognissonance (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cognissonance: Thanks for the thorough and helpful review! It's great to go through a review of one's work and think "yes, I agree with everything here and can't believe I didn't notice these flaws before". I have done my best in addressing the points you raised, and hope everything is good enough - if not, I'd be grateful for further feedback.--IDVtalk 22:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Pass/Fail:
    @IDV: Great work on the article. Finally something to review where the references aren't a total mess. Cognissonance (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you!--IDVtalk 23:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]