Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Game Boy Color video game)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Game Boy Color video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 02:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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

---

The article is informative and reasonably well-written. Establishing the standalone GBC article for this title is a great undertaking, so thanks for drafting and nominating. Whilst I'm not a seasoned assessor, I think there's some work that needs to be done to elevate this article to GA status. The most notable issue is sourcing the 'Plot' section. This section captures the overarching plot of the film, but does not seem to follow the plot of the game itself. Finding a source would be helpful to illustrate the validity of this section. I think the 'Review' section could do with some minor edits to focus reviews on the assessment of the game's merits, and not their resemblance to other media, which seems an overly specific detail.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   The article text is concise, with the headline statement being a short and effective summary of the article's content.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The structure of the page conforms with the manual of style for video game articles, following the structure of an accurate headline, gameplay, plot, development, and reception.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   The 'Plot' section is an unsourced restatement of the plot of the film, and is generally not well connected to the content of the game and its gameplay sequences. An example of this is that a large section of the game involves the player going to various classes and completing tasks, which is not captured in the section. This section needs to be re-evaluated to capture how the game itself presents the story, not that it generally resembles the plot of the film of the same name.

   I made no referral to the film adaptation when writing this plot section; the events of the plot as written are as they are conveyed in the game, with a playthrough being my sole reference material. Attempting to incorporate the happenings of the gameplay segments would amount to excessive and ultimately irrelevant detail, so only points pertaining to the narrative are included. Also, per WP:VG/PLOT, the plot's summary is assumed to be sourced by the game itself, and so the section generally doesn't require citations unless any given element happens to be open for interpretation. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

   Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Given that the guidelines state that sourcing of a plot is deemed to be self-evident in the game itself, there's certainly no reason to have any sourcing concerns, so happy to reverse the above point. I think the statement in WP:PLOT stating "the plot should summarise content that every player would be expected to see on a playthrough of a game" may be what I had in mind. However, the guidelines also note avoiding minutiae, so I can see the rationale behind focusing only on the narrative progression. Vrxces (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Where cited, references are helpful and reliable.

   c. (OR):

   Sources generally affirm the veracity of the article's text. Quotes in the review section attached to the references for the lead article. The reliance on the game's manual is satisfactory as page references are provided, and the manual itself has good coverage - I would recommend finding a link of the manual for accessibility.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The article text does not seem to have been copied from citations.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   Coverage is sufficiently broad, covering a good overview of the game's content, development, and reception, notwithstanding the previously-stated issues with the lack of detail on the plot of the game.

   b. (focused):

   I think there are a few awkward facts given undue significance in the review section that could be reframed. For instance, the emphasis in the review section on comparisons to other media, particularly the Reading Rainbow comparison, doesn't assist an understanding of critical praise for the game itself.

   Bettenhausen's comparisons are intended to provide context to why the gameplay and presentation feel familiar to him, as well as to his experience in regards to the game's faithfulness to the novel's story. Plus, simply stating "The game's faithfulness to the book was commended" would seem too short by itself. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

   I understand. I think my point is that there are more helpful remarks in these reviews to convey that praise; for instance, a more informative way of expressing that could be stating, for instance, "Bettenhausen praised the game for "doing justice" to the novel, stating that "characters, locations and plot events all mirror J.K. Rowling's text perfectly". Alone I know this is really a nitpick and shouldn't obstruct the assessment, but I note the quotes also raise comparisons to Zelda, Lunar and Final Fantasy whilst not articulating what features or mechanics of the game worked well. I also think maybe I've critiqued this under the wrong lens. The issue probably isn't one of detail but just reinforcing a greater sense of structure to the section as per WP:VG/REC. The organisation of review quotes under a few signposting sentences could probably help with the flow. I'm happy to help with this if that would be welcomed. Thanks for your patience. Vrxces (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

   I made some tweaks to the aforementioned statements. Hopefully they're at least a slight improvement. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

   Thanks! I think at this point the article is up to standard. The residual thoughts I have on the article are nitpicks at this stage - generally I think the article satisfies the GA criteria. I've changed the criteria for this section and the assessment as a whole to a 'yes'. Thanks for drafting. Vrxces (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

   No prob. Be sure to finish the GAR process by following the instructions in this section. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There are no bias issues; the review section captures positive and negative criticism of the game.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   There are no significant short-term changes to the article.

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):

   The article is supported by a cover art and screenshot that have the proper non-free use rationale. The source for the screenshot is cited as a link to a youtube video. I'm not sure whether this is generally good practice - appreciate any comments on this.

   I've previously used YouTube videos for gameplay images in several Good Articles and I hadn't received any complaints prior to this, and I see nothing against it in WP:VGIMAGES either. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

   That appears to be the case - thanks for the clarification. Vrxces (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   There are no identifiable issues with captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   As discussed in the overarching statements, I think some sections need work before the article can be considered at a GA level.

   Following some discussions and minor edits, this article seems to conform with the requirements of a good article.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)