Talk:Ib (video game)/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 05:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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 (inline 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

General comments

• Thank you for updating the page for Ib. I can see that comparing the version prior to your work and the current version that enormous effort has gone into this page. The core improvements are that the article is more concise, well-written, and contains significantly less bloat.

• However, I think at this time, the article falls slightly short of the standard needed for a successful GAN. The article is certainly capable of becoming a GA and I have started to add some points of feedback below as a collection of thoughts that could help. I note that most of these are minor suggestions and not fundamental barriers to the passage of the GAN outside of its sourcing.

• • Generally, the main problem with the article lies with its sourcing; the article contains enough independent, reliable coverage to establish general notability, but the sources don't seem to illustrate broad secondary coverage verifying the article's information, and there is very little in the way of secondary sources on the game currently.

• I've put the assessment on hold if you would like to work on the article, but it is also fine to seek a reassessment or a second opinion if you think more time is needed to work on it too.

Feedback

Headline

• in an eldritch art museum You may like to link to the concept to make its meaning clear.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by the "concept". Wikilinking the word 'eldritch'?
• The game is considered a cult classic and a generally influential title... See below at Reception.

Plot

• Game screenshots tend to be placed in the 'Gameplay' section. However, I understand the screenshot is not particularly illustrative of the gameplay given the limited user interface.
  • I placed the screenshot there to avoid MOS:SANDWICH issues with the infobox.
• Whilst the section doesn't have the tenor of a strategy guide, the concision and flow of the section is broken a little attempting to break up the various endings. It sounds like there are quite a lot of variables. It may be worth stripping this section down a little more.
  • Removed the names of the endings, as they didn't really add anything to the plot summary

Development and release

• Kouri is a mononym of the developer. Is anything known about the developer? It's not unusual for articles on independent games to refer to anonymous creators, but available information seems like a logical research direction to provide greater detail on the content of this section.
  • "kouri" is obviously a pseudonym and I would have liked to state so in the article. Unfortunately, no RS explicitly confirm it (I guess they too think it's obvious?). He has a blog, but it doesn't really contain anything of substance beyond merchandise and update announcements. As multiplayer.it put it: "not much is known about Kouri".
• ...development started for... - suggest rewording to "started on".
  • Done.
• It may be more direct and short to try and combine information into shorter sentences where possible. For instance, the sentence "Created with the RPG Maker MV engine, the remake features updated graphics, sound and gameplay mechanics." reads just as clearly to me without embellishment.
  • Partly done, I guess?

Reception

• As a norm, I've found most articles begin with the second paragraph's statement about review aggregator scores, maybe as they tend to be a more objective assessment of the reception.
  • Typically yes. However, the aggregator scores only apply to the remake and I think it is better to address the original release first.
• Reference citations are usually attached to the scores included in the review template.
  • I think this follows the same rules as infoboxes: a citation is needed if the information is not already mentioned and cited in the body. I have therefore added citations to the individual review scores.
• Ib is considered a cult classic and generally influential title. This reads as a evaluative statement about the broad reception of the game that slightly overstates the importance of the game. The 'cult' label seems to be only supported by statements in two reliable sources, the RPG Fan and Nintendo World Report. Are there other ways to establish or express this wording?
  • I found and have added a TouchArcade review describing the game as having a "semi-legendary status within its category" and a Siliconera news piece calling it a "cult classic". A situational source Game Rant notes twice that it has a "large cult following", but I have omitted it for now.
• I note that the article for The Witch's House contains a citation that the developer was inspired by Ib to create the game. Are there good quotes or other sources like this which could establish a 'Legacy' section that provides direct evidence of the game's influence on the genre?
  • I don't think there is / couldn't find enough meat for a separate 'legacy' section that couldn't be naturally covered as part of the main reception.
• Otherwise, the existing sources themselves do not strongly illustrate why the game is influential and seems more precisely confined to the influence of the game on other RPG Maker horror titles.
  • I have dropped the word 'generally' to hopefully better convey the fact that its influence is limited to that genre. I'm open to further refining it, but I believe that the sourcing is now there to establish that it is/was an influential title within its (small) genre.
• To support greater neutrality and breadth of coverage, you may like to expand the review section to cover broader reception of the game's praise and any criticism around other aspects. What do the review sources say about the gameplay, graphics or sound design beyond the atmosphere?
  • Expanded

Sources

• The article has fairly limited sourcing. This isn't in itself a barrier to GAN, but can affect the extent to which sources support and verify an article's breadth of content. I understand this can be an issue with independent games, which tend to have strong coverage in blogs and non-reliable review sources. However, when primary sources such as interviews or press release style announcements are excluded, there is very little secondary coverage that supports the content of the article. To clarify, secondary coverage is where independent opinions about the game are expressed - excluding interviews and press media.
• It looks like the Switch port of Ib was reviewed in Famitsu for issue 1787, so you might like to start there if you are able to find it. I wonder if there's other mainstream coverage out there?
  • Available sourcing is indeed quite limited. In fact, this article would probably not have survived an AfD before the remake came out. I was unable to find an online copy of the Famitsu issue, but I found a summary from their website that I have incorporated into the reception section. In addition, I have added RS reception from TouchArcade and multiplayer.is.

Thanks for reviewing this article Vrxces. Responses above. Charcoal feather (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience; I'll take a look shortly. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies - I haven't had the time recently to progress GANs; rather than delay this further, I might get a second opinion on this GAN to build on the above. Thanks again for your patience. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Second opinion review

@Charcoal feather: I'll look over this article soon to provide the second opinion request by Vrxces. NegativeMP1 19:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I actually couldn't find any issues at first glance that would warrant a fail. All issues above I believe were addressed properly and I can't find anything extra that I think could be integrated, though I am slightly disappointed at the lack of development info (ex. inspirations.) @Vrxces: you should be able to pass this. NegativeMP1 16:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks so much for your help, and also to the article creator for their patience. Passing GAN now. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both! Charcoal feather (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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.