Talk:Kerbal Space Program/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anarchyte (talk · contribs) 05:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Here's my review of the article! Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Let's start with an analysis of the sources, to check for reliability (per WP:VG/RS). This analysis doesn't take into account how the source is used, only the first glance of it.

I noticed you haven't wikilinked any of the websites or publishers. This isn't required, but it's always nice.
Archives are also great, even if the website isn't dead. Add a |deadurl=no when they're not dead.
In the 6th source, it's currently got "Gama Sutra". The website is Gamasutra.
In the 10th source, it's just got "pcgamer". It should be PCGamer with the publisher being Future plc.
In the 12th source, there's no website or publisher name.
The 18th source doesn't seem to reliable. Here's their about page.
Ref 19 is unreliable. YouTube isn't a reliable source.
Not sure about the reliability of TVTropes (ref21). Either way, this isn't fleshed out enough. It's missing everything except the title.
Ref 22 is also YouTube, though the video is by Unity so I'm not 100% sure on this one.
23 is primary.
Ref 24 is YouTube, again.
Ref 26 doesn't seem reliable. Here is their about page.
Refs 28 to 31 are all like the 4th dotpoint here.
Ref 40 and 41 are primary.
Ref 50 is missing the website parameter.
Ref 53 isn't formatted correctly, it is similar to the pcgamer issues.
Ref 55 has a big error on it.

Basically, there are a few that aren't reliable, and basically all of them need someone to go over them and add websites, publishers, and other parameters to them.

Lead

It's missing a summary of the reception.
Citations are unnecessary in the lead if the content is mentioned elewhere (which it should be, seeing as the lead is a summary of the article). See WP:CITELEAD.
players direct a nascent space program Is "direct" the correct word here?
Kerbal Space Program has support for mods which add new features, and popular ones such as those for resource mining and context-based missions have received official support and inclusion in the game by Squad. This is a mouthful. Could you try to cut it down?
including NASA and SpaceX's[4] Elon Musk. If we're going to have a ref here, don't put it in the middle of the sentence. If we're referencing Elon Musk, why don't we have one for NASA? In my opinion it should be removed entirely.

Gameplay

I see no mention of "common sense" in the supplied ref. Is this part even necessary?
No source is given for Kerbals have shown themselves capable of constructing complex spacecraft parts and performing experiments to realize their scientific goals.
Once built, crafts can be launched by players from the KSC "by players" is unnecessary.
in an attempt to complete player-set or game-directed missions while avoiding What missions. Can you give an example? (see also: dotpoint 6)
No source is provided for These planets and other vehicles can be targeted to view information needed for rendezvous and docking, such as ascending and descending nodes, target direction, and relative velocity to the target. While in map mode, players can also access maneuver nodes in order to plan out trajectory changes in advance.
So here you explain what the missions are, but you've already mentioned how they play earlier. Maybe these parts should be reworded so that they go in the same paragraph.
No source for Players may also set challenges for each other on the game's forums, such as visiting all five moons of Jool (the in-game analog for Jupiter), or use mods to test each other's spacecrafts in air combat tournaments.
What is Karbonite? I haven't played this game before (besides a bit of the alpha). Try tp explain it in the article as you would to someone who has never played it before.
and entirely user-assigned missions Huh?
This mode is also frequently used to create replicas of real-life aircraft, rockets, trains, boats, and cars. Not mentioned in source.
advancing "science" What do you mean by this? Is there a science skill tree? This part is confusing.
Science gained on a mission must be received by the space port Again, what do you mean by this?
Is it "Spaceport" or "Space port"? You've written it in both ways.
This mode was designed to ease new players into the game and prevent them from getting overwhelmed No mention in the source of "easing players into the game".
Put the sources at the end of the sentence instead of in the middle. It hurts readability, and unless it's a quote, it's not really needed. It also helps indicate that the rest of the sentence also uses the same source.
all objects in the game except the celestial bodies are simulated using Newtonian dynamics. For instance, rocket thrust is applied to a vehicle's frame based on the placement of force-generating elements, and joints between parts have limited strength, allowing vehicles to be torn apart by excessive or misdirected forces. Unsourced.
The third paragraph in Physics is all sourced to a YouTube video, which is unreliable. Throw in some secondary sources.
The simulations are accurate enough that real-world techniques such as Hohmann transfers and aerobraking are viable methods of navigating the solar system. No mention of aerobreaking in the source.
Aerobraking, however, has become a much more difficult method of velocity reduction since the full 1.0 release due to improved aerodynamics and optional heating during atmospheric entry. In-game atmospheres thin out into space, but have finite heights, unlike real atmospheres. Unsourced.
analog Do you mean analogue?

Result

Sorry, but from just looking at the gameplay and the lead parts of this article, I don't see the point of continuing along into the other sections. This is not at GA standard yet, and would need a lot of work to get it there. Alongside this, there is still a standing cleanup tag under reception, which still applies. The reception needs a big expansion. Take a look at some GA/FA video game articles for an idea on what people look for. I'm quickfailing this because of these reasons (see dotpoint 3 of the criteria for quickfailing for more info). It's on its way, but I don't think this'll be at GA standard yet for a bit. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]