Talk:AM2R/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

Lead

• "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

• "for the game" is implied, and not necessary.

•  Done

Content

• "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

• "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

• trial-and-error — Link to Trial and error

•  Done

• game engine — Link to Game engine

•  Done

• sprites — Link to Sprite (computer graphics)

•  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

• 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

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)

   @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.--IDV^talk 22:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

   Thank you!--IDV^talk 23:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)