Talk:Gyromancer

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I enjoyed Flower, so I'll take a look at this article :)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   See below

   B. MoS compliance:

   See below

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Satisfactory for a GA, though I haven't checked in enormous detail.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Are you sure http://www.siliconera.com/2009/11/12/gyromancer-development-started-over-casual-drinks/ is reliable? It looks like a blog to me.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I'd be inclined to say there is a fairly large ommission- it may be the fantasy roleplayer in me, but I want to know more about the plot, and I want to know more about the monsters- are they captured Pokémon styley? Chosen at the start of the game? Do you learn new spells as you progress, meaning you can summon more awesome monsters? What kind of monster can you get anyway? Dragon? Fey? Bulette? Silt Strider? Angel? Lich? Pikachu?

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Generally fairly good, but I think it needs a little more work before it is at GA level.

• "four gems out of a grid of gems" Repetition- could this be rephrased?
• "the summons"- neither Wiktionary nor the OED Online recognise the noun "summon" as one who is summoned. Could this be rephrased?
• "cheesy music" A little informal?
• "their summons" Again. There are others.
• "If a line of three or more identical gems is formed the gems disappear" You need a comma or conjunction or something
• "level with" Again, comma or something? The sentence is a little convoluted. I know what it means, but I've played Bejeweled
• "Square Enix, who has published" Which had? Not only do you have a tense shift, but you refer to the company as a person
• "reviewers. While many reviewers" Repetition
• "in which the characters speaking "slide back and forth like cardboard cutouts".[1]" It's not clear what this means- could it be rephrased?
• "but did note say that they felt that the portraits of monsters were reused for different summons too often." Again?
• "that "Even the" Could this E be lowercase, or would that be against the MOS?
• A fairly major concern for the reception section- could the opinions please be attributed to the reviewers themselves, rather than the publication? "John Smith, writing for The Magazine, said "Blah"." rather than "The Magazine said "Blah"."

• Thanks for the review! I have a huge cold, so I don't think I'm going to be able to get to this for a few days. Hopefully before the 7 days are up, though. Thanks for the congratulations on Flower (video game) as well! --PresN 02:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't intend to keep to the seven day thing. If this can be improved, I'm happy to promote it, whether it takes an hour or a month. Get well soon! J Milburn (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Alright, lets do this thing.

• Siliconera is run/owned by CraveOnline, the group that also runs RPGamer.com and about 20 other sites. Several of their writers also write for/crosspost their stuff to Gamasutra, but that interview isn't over there. They perform numerous interviews with video game developers- 10 in the past month alone.

• Did the grammar/repetition stuff you listed, still working on the reviewers' names. --PresN 16:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Reviewers' names are done, just have your plot/monsters criticisms to go. --PresN 21:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Alright, all done. There's not much more that I can add to the plot- I've never played the game, and every review/summary out there simply mentions that there is one before dismissing it as irrelevant to the game. I've expanded what I could there. --PresN 19:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool, looks good. I made some quick fixes, and now I'm happy to promote. Thanks for being patient. If you're interested in taking this article further, I would look into plot expansion (it may even warrant its own section) but that would probably involve you playing the game- maybe even taking notes if it is as convoluted as the reviewers suggest. There's not much else that is obviously lacking, but this doesn't quite have the spark that you see in other articles- perhaps the key would be hunting down more sources, perhaps from bigger publishers. I accept that, for a game of this sort, they may not exist. The article is by no means lacking at this time, and sits well as a decent GA. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gyromancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120709171614/http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/104/1046583p1.html to http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/104/1046583p1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3176193
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307143228/http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/104/1047625p1.html to http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/104/1047625p1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307143323/http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/104/1048846p1.html to http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/104/1048846p1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/gyromancer

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)