Talk:Solipskier/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Salvidrim! (talk · contribs) 15:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking forward to it czar  15:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I may not have time before the weekend (I'm incorrigible, I know), so feel free to look for another reviewer if you must; however with the GAN backlog I doubt this delay will be problematic. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  16:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm in no rush, myself. Though thanks for the heads up czar  16:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey @Salvidrim!, just wanted to put this back on your radar, in case it got lost czar  17:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Doing it now, a thousand apologies for the delay. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • First review done. Please see the issues I raised lower. Do me a favor and reply in-line to them, I'll strike them through as they are resolved. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!, thanks for the review. I think I've handled the lot—take a look? czar  03:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Replied czar  05:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

GA-class criteria[edit]

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

I'll update this as I go along

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, 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):
  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: Passed after response to initial issues
    Pass/Fail:

Lede[edit]

  • Solipskier is a sports video game for Adobe Flash, iOS, and Android by Mikengreg, a two-man independent development team consisting of Michael Boxleiter and Greg Wohlwend. - between "Android" and "by", there should probably be a verb, like "developped" or something analoguous.
  • Please wikilink "independent" to a relevan page about indie developpers.
  • "the pair" seems to far from what it is referencing. Also, see Reception concerns concerning "widespread acclaim".
  • In the Infobox, please add to the "release date" field to account for the different release date on Android.
  • Looking at the pages for Sports game and Endless runner, I'm not sure the currently indicated genre is correct. Obviously, we should go with available sources, so if they say it's a sports game, so be it, but I think it's more of a "sports-theme endless running game".
IGN puts it in the sports genre. I doubt they would consider "endless runner" a genre. The distinction doesn't help much in this case anyway
Alright, if IGN says so... ☺ · Salvidrim! · 

Gameplay[edit]

  • The gameplay section specifically mentions touch controls ("the player's finger..."), but this game is not exclusive to touch-based devices; I personally have only ever played it on a computer, with a mouse. Also present in the lede.
The sources almost exclusively referred to the touchscreen version, but I removed the specificity
  • I feel like the last two sentences of this section (original Flash release and title origins) would be more appropriate for Development.
  • It also has an online leaderboard (...), "it" is too far from what it is referencing, considering the sentence just before this one.
  • The last sentence says it was a Flash game before being ported to iOS, but the Development sections says these two versions were released at the same time.

Development[edit]

  • First sentence: what limitations? Is the fact that the game was first desiged as a Flash game supported by a reference? Perhaps recycle another existing one.
  • Can we have more info what Intuition Games is? It is mentioned, but perhaps you could wikilink to the section in Greg's or Mikengreg's article?

Reception[edit]

  • Why is "generally favorable" in quotation marks?
Because it's a direct quote
Since it's just three words, I don't think it poses a problem copyvio-wise, but the quotation marks in this case can be understood as implying that it's not simply generally favorable reviews but that there is more to it, or that it is sarcastic... I dunno, I may be ready too much into things. ☺ · Salvidrim! · 
For me, the point is that a secondary source is reviewing the reviews instead of me making an original claim that the reviews were positive
  • The first sentence of the last paragraph of Development says "widespread acclaim", which seems to clash with Reception stating it received "generally favorable" reviews.
  • The reception template is looking rather desolate with only two reviews and two aggregators, which all conveys pretty much the same information. What do you think of integrating both scores in prose, as well as the Metacritic average?
I think it serves its purpose. I know I prefer to see the box for scores rather than digging through the prose
How about adding the 148apps and SlideToPlay reviews, then? ☺ · Salvidrim! · 

External Links[edit]

  • I don't really like, visually, the Commons link without any support, bullet, whatever. Maybe bullet it, and add a second EL? Like the Kongregate page for the game?
I never bullet the Commons link and it hasn't been an issue. I added an external link, though
I don't see another EL? Also, per WP:LAYOUTEL, a bullet point is generally used when not using the box-type template. ☺ · Salvidrim! · 
Forgot to add it. And, eh, that's not how I'm reading that page. Moreover the template's talk page acknowledges that there is not mandate to use bullet points with it, and I've only very rarely seen it used with one. (As an aside, I believe this would also fall outside the scope of the GA review.)
It does fall outside the general scope of a GA. ☺ · Salvidrim! · 

Media content[edit]

  • I understand that free content should be used with fervor, but am unsure whether the article really needs 6 pieces of media, considering it's relatively small length; especially two screenshots + a video. What do each screeshot provide that the other doesn't and what do both provide that the video doesn't?
Minding that some won't be able to view the video due to their connections, the screenshots show two different views of the gameplay. I could strike the second gameplay image, if you deem it necessary
Good point. And yes, I think the first screenshot conveys the "drawing the gound" and gates gameplay better. ☺ · Salvidrim! · 
  • The descriptor of the infobox image is "app icon", which seems too short and not descriptive enough. "Solipskier app icon in the iTunes Store" or something like it might better inform readers.
This also hasn't been an issue for me before. It should be fairly straightforward what the image is indicating, so I only added the caption to be sure. To add the name of the app would be redundant, and the icon is the same across all app stores
I get what you're saying; however (surprisingly), app isn't wiklinked anywhere, and someone unfamiliar with how apps work might be unclear on what an "app icon" is. ☺ · Salvidrim! · 

Notes/References[edit]

  • I'm unsure about your usage of notes, and feel like the first two should be integrated within the prose. The third note about supported platforms may be a better fit in the infobox after "iOS" than where it currently is, as it is not as relevant in-context where it is located.
I made these notes because I felt they were sufficiently interesting to include in the article but unnecessary for understanding the development
Still not sure it's the best option but it's not really a problem either, so I'll count this as an editorial choice. ☺ · Salvidrim! · 
  • What makes 148apps.com a reliable source? Please discuss at WT:VG/S for review.
Discussed in Archive 6 and Archive 9. I'll add it to the list
  • I'm also not sure you need a "retrieved" date and an "archived" date, especially since they're all the same. I think it makes them unecessarily long.
Maybe, but this is the common practice per {{Cite web}}
Per MOS:CITE#Webpages, accessdate is only required when publication date is unknown; in this case, the archivedate is the same as the accessdate for obvious reasons (you accessed and archived them at the same time), so detailing both is rendundant and makes the references section more cluttered than it needs to be. ☺ · Salvidrim! · 
Right, so required if no date was provided, but it's common practice to add it (especially as web content changes). I'd be willing to cede if there was consensus otherwise
I still think it'd be better without the redundant fields, but I do not think it is wrong to do it your way, so I'll chalk it up to preference. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·