Talk:Dream Chronicles (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I intend to perform a Good Article review of this article. My initial thoughts are that the article has an overlarge emphasis on plot, and that the plot sections are poorly written, but that otherwise this is a strong article that can probably be promoted after work. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My revised initial thoughts are that despite attractive layout and the lovely screenshots from the game this is actually a fairly poorly written article, and the basic proofreading expected of editors prior to a GA nomination has not occurred. I am no longer certain that this article can be promoted during the period of this review. I am continuing through the criteria, though. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have completed Criterion 1 and so far the article has failed every subcriterion it's possible to fail. Basic work expected prior to a GA nomination has clearly not occurred. I am seeking advice about the etiquette of abandoning the review at this stage and moving immediately to fail. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have decided to proceed in summary form. The article will be failed, but I will give a high-level assessment against each remaining criteria without citing specific examples, so as to give you an idea of where the article stands. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

The prose is not clear and concise. This is a general problem thoughout the article which will take substantial rewriting, but some examples are as follows. Please note that clearing all the specific examples will not necessarily bring the article to the necessary standard in and of itself.

• Lead - "It tells the story [...] may never be broken." - These few sentences are not concise, and do not substantially deal with the game's uniqueness, notability or fame. Consider trimming to "It tells the story of a woman named Faye who is the only person to remain awake after a powerful fairy's spell puts her town to sleep." Or similar. One sentence should be sufficient to summarise the plot.
• Lead - "which is a well blending of adventure and hidden object games" - this does not make sense. Possibly you mean, "which blendings adventure and hidden object games"?
• Lead - "genre in casual game" should probably be "genre in casual games" or "in casual gaming".
• Lead - "part of the first trilogy" should probably be "part of a trilogy"
• Story - This is waaay too long for a plot summary. My recollection of the game is that it uses less words to tell its entire story than you do to summarise it here, but personal anecdotes aside, you need to trim this for conciseness. Have a look at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary for some advice. It's really a very simple plot, and in any case you need to consider how much of this is relevant to an encyclopaedic understanding of the topic, given that Wikipedia is neither a fansite nor a review site. (My expectation would be "very little" - I would be surprised if you could not encyclopaedically summarise the plot within four sentences.)
• Characters - None of this is relevant to an encyclopaedic understanding of the game. Relevant characters should be adequately explained in the "plot" section in context within the plot. Characters who don't need to be explained in order to explain the plot don't belong in the article unless they have notability independent of the game (none of these do). Cut the entire section and merge any relevant information to the plot section.
• Gameplay - "The game resembles epic Myst series in a way which is much simpler." This sentence doesn't make sense. First of all it should be "the epic Myst series" - or rather, "the Myst series" as "epic" is puffery. And then the end "in a way which is much simpler" is vague, poor English, and doesn't convey any meaning.
• Gameplay - "Clicking items place them in your inventory at the bottom of the screen." This is not a complete sentence. Do you mean "places them in your inventory"?
• Gameplay - ... I am not going to continue listing problems with the gameplay section. The entire section is in very poor English and has not benefited from a basic proofread prior to nomination. It is expected that the majority of the work to take the article from B to GA will be done by the editors on the article prior to the nomination; a simple proofread is part of this work. Please carefully consider the entire section and fix the many missing words and poor sentence constructions throughout.
• Development - Entire section. Similar problems to Gameplay (poor English, incomplete sentences, awkward constructions, missing words). For example the first sentence: "none of them earned success because of their poorly low-budget appearances." Leaving aside the fact that this opinion isn't attributed to a reliable source (more of which later) "poorly low-budget appearances" is simply not a meaningful phrase. Possibly you mean "because of their low-budget appearance"? In any case the entire section requires a proofread and rewrite.
• Reception - Entire section. Not as bad as the last two but still some poor constructions. Eg. "Awem Studio enjoyed the original Dream Chronicles, said" - this should be "and said".

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Lead section - The lead section should summarise information appearing elsewhere in the article. However, none of the following information from the lead appears elsehwere in the article: that it was pitched at the first Casual Games Association event, that it was the very first adventure game to hit the mainstream casual game industry (a false claim in any event, I would have thought, as any number of developers were releasing point-n-clicks to a casual market in the early 2000s), and all of the information about its sequels.
• Lead section - The lead section should be a concise summary. See my concerns above about how much plot information appears in the lead. I am also not sure you need quite so many review quotes in the lead.
• Layout ... is fine.
• Words to watch - The following words do not comply with the guidelines on words to watch:

• "popular" (unattributed characterisation) - several instances of this.
• "up to now" (vague chronological reference) - Change to "As of 2011" or whatever time you have sources for.
• "mysteriouis" (editorialising)
• "they'll" (unencyclopaedic language) - Change to "they will"
• "poser" (unencylopaedic language) - Change to "problem" or "puzzle". (This sentence has other problems per the rewrite issues addressed in criterion 1a)
• "a lot" (vague index) - How many?
• "it deserved" (editorialising)
• "was thought to be" (unattributed opinion / expression of doubt)
• "meanwhile" (vague chronological reference) - When?
• "actually" (redundant / editorialising)
• "they've" (unencyclopaedic language) - change to "they have"

• Fiction - The plot and character sections have major problems - see my comments under criterion 1(a). Executive summary - trim the story section to about four sentences, concentrate on aspects relevant to an encyclopaedic understanding, make sure it's not described from an in-universe perspective, and delete the "characters" section entirely.
• List incorporation - Please see WP:Embedded list. The list of release dates should probably be removed from the article. It's not relevant when the game was released at individual storefronts unless there is some particular notability attaching to that release. (For example, we don't show when films opened at individual theatres, nor do we note if a game release is delayed at a single store in Sydney due to a broken-down truck.) Consider removing the majority of the list and describing any remaining relevant release dates through prose.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

All references appear in a dedicated and appropriately described section.

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

The article contains many facts and assertions which are not supported through inline citations. The article contains many words marked by quote marks as direct quotes (eg "hardcore", "Hidden Object & Adventure", etc) which are not attributed to sources in the text or supported by an inline citation.

(c) it contains no original research.

It is not possible to determine whether the article contains original research until all facts requiring citation are sourced through inline citations.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Despite the fact that most reviews mention and praise the game's soundtrack, there is no discussion in the article of the game's audio, sound design, or musical score. Similarly despite the artwork being "astonishing" there is no discussion of the art director or artist on the game, or even a mention of its visual style. The article also does not mention (outside of the lead paragraph) the existence of sequels.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

The article is overly detailed in places, the two most egregious examples being the story/characters sections and the list of release dates, both of which are discussed in more detail under criterion 1 above.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.


Even allowing for the reviews of the game being mainly positive, I would expect to see some criticism of the game appear at some point in the article, probably in the format. "Although reviews were mainly positive, common criticisms by reviewers included the game's short length, repetitive gameplay and derivative storyline."

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   The article is stable and does not appear to be the subject of ongoing disputes.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Images have been quite carefully tagged but unfortunately I am not sure their fair use rationale holds up. While the logo in the infobox is probably fine, the remaining screenshots run into problems because they may only be used for "identification of a copyrighted character or item" or "critical commentary on a computer or videogame". Wikipedia articles should never contain primary critical commentary, and the remaining screenshots are not being used to identify copyrighted characters or items, but merely to illustrate the article's themes and assertions.

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Images mostly have appropriate captions but the "draft of the Glass House scene" image does not explain its significance either in the caption or in the adjoining text. What does it mean that it's a "draft of the Glass House scene"? What is "the Glass House scene" and what is the significance of a draft of it? Is this an image that appears in the game, or a design drawing?

Overview - This article falls far short of the standard required for a Good Article. Basic proofreading work was not done prior to its nomination, and nominators do not appear to have taken the time to familiarise themselves with relevant policies and guidelines. While this is still generally a strong and attractive article, it will require substantial work before it is ready to be renominated for Good Article status. I accordingly Fail the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)