Talk:Unsighted

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unsighted/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 20:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: A412 (talk · contribs) 06:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this one. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Non-prose done. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

All done. This is really close. Holding, @Vrxces: let me know when ready for another pass. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help! I think I've actioned everything! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

References

As of this revision.

Spotcheck

• [1] - Fine.
• [4] - I'm unsure how this source supports Players can also use blueprints with collected or bought components to acquire potions that provide temporary buffs, or craft chips that enhance the player's attributes or provide various effects, such as increasing damage or decreasing damage taken, or providing greater health points. Y More sourcing added.
• [7] - Fine.
• [10] - Per WP:PMC, the slightly changed quote to "let the player play the way they want to" should be bracketed as to "[let] the player play the way they want to", or reword slightly to for the purpose of "letting the player play the way they want to". Y Just shortening the quote works too!
• [13], [16], [19], [22], [25] - Fine.

RS

Everything looks fine.

CV

Earwig clean besides quotes.

OR

Fine.

Broadness / Focus

Fine.

NPOV

Fine.

Stable

Fine.

Images

Infobox image is fine. Gameplay image is fine on license. It could use a better description than In-game screenshot. Y Made it about the use of weapons in combat, given the focus in the image. The game's UI is sadly way too small for a screenshot to focus on other article topics i.e. the time limit.

Prose

Lead

• First paragraph
  • General comment: It's a bit short for a lead, no? Could probably add another sentence about gameplay, and setting / plot aren't touched on at all. Could also maybe include something about which elements critics liked less. Y Agreed. Let's really spell out the time mechanic as that's the key interesting thing about the game in coverage.
  • General comment: MOS:DOUBLE prescribes double quotes by default.   Noted - as below, let's remove single quotes so 'meteor dust' > meteor dust.
  • The game was designed by Brazilian developers - reads oddly. I get that they're probably both designers and developers, but is there a better wording? Y
  • innovation of the game's use of time -> game's innovative use of time maybe? Y

Gameplay

• First paragraph
  • Wikilink player character Y
  • extends the time by 24 hours - 24 real hours, or 24 in-universe hours? Y
  • Meteor Dust/meteor dust/'meteor dust' - pick a consistent capitalization and quoting Y
  • Maybe wikilink grappling hook for hookshot. Y
  • Combat is engaged one weapon in each hand -> engaged with? engaged in with? The player character engages in combat with? Y
  • and can dodge or parry enemy attacks - Tense doesn't agree with the first part of the sentence. Y

Plot

• First paragraph
  • The Doctor - Unless this is a The Doctor situation, I think doctor should be lowercased Y
• Second paragraph
  • with Alma and every automaton in Arcadia has a matter of hours to survive -> having Y

Development and release

• First paragraph
  • Unsighted was developed by Studio Pixel Punk, a Brazilian independent games studio founded in 2017 - Is there a specific time in sources where development of Unsighted began? Was this their first/only project?   It looks like the best we can do is the creation of the studio: work on Unsighted seems to have been already underway on their social media profiles in December 2017 when the studio was created, but no primary or secondary sources give a firm date of when work began.
  • Wikilink independent games studio to indie game? (also, how is independent games studio not a redirect) Y
  • Wikilink transgender / transgender women? Y
  • I don't think naturalistic quite works as a synonym of natural here, which is the term used in the source. Y
• Second paragraph
  • The lead and infobox mention Humble Games as publisher, but not the body text. Any way to add it? Y Easy, the publisher was the one that formally announced the game in 2020 with a trailer.

Reception

• General comment: In several places we word critics' commentary on the qualities of the game in wikivoice. It's more neutral to word them as attributed to the critics. For example, Many reviewers praised the game's innovative use of time limits -> Many reviewers praised the game's use of time limits as innovative, and GameSpot praised the game's "sharp combat" due to its balance of requiring quick reflexes and managing stamina -> GameSpot praised the game's "sharp combat", describing it as requiring a balance of quick reflexes and managing stamina. Y Rewritten to soften inadvertent assertions that would seem to endorse the value judgments of reviewers. Let me know if this still an issue.
• First paragraph
  • No comments.
• Second paragraph
  • No comments.
• Third paragraph
  • citing the combo system, timed attacks and reloads - Is it worth mentioning the combo system and timed attacks in the gameplay section? They're currently not mentioned. Y Added much more detail to the gameplay section.
• Fourth paragraph
  • No comments.
• Fifth paragraph
  • GameSpot found the game's art style and perspective to create difficulties -> created Y

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.