Talk:Only Up!

B-Class evaluation

Since the assessment template doesn't support this, I'll do it here instead.

1.  Done Suitably referenced?
2.  Done Major coverage?

• Unfortunately, SCKR Games is an unknown game studio, and there's no source about how they made the game. I'll ignore this and assume this article has already covered essential information.

3.  Done Defined structure?
4.  Done Reasonably well written?
5.  Done Supporting materials
6.  Done Understandable and not technical?
Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 05:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey there @Vrxces, I just expanded upon the game's removal on Steam this September. Is it alright if you could take a look at it?

I'm also pinging the nominator; I'd like to help what I can in improving the article for re-nomination. @TrademarkedTarantula B3251 (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@B3251, what are your suggestions? I'd like to know how I can improve this article. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 23:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I personally don't have any suggestions because I'm not the most experienced editor; I recommend just working on the GA review's notes and potentially either re-nominate it or request a peer review. B3251 (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Overall comments

Thanks for taking the time to substantially improve this article. It's clear that you've made great efforts to enhance it in seeking peer review and taking on plenty of feedback. Comparing the article to your mammoth initial draft, it's clear that there have been plenty of improvements. However, I think the article does fall short of the GAN standard as it stands. I've tried to outline the key areas where it does so below, and some miscellaneous comments, some of which relate to the GAN criteria, and others that do not and are just to help improve the article further. I have made this a 'fail' rather than an 'on hold' because I think the issues run a little deeper than turns of phrase and structure and how the information in the article is sourced and presented, which might take more time and research to improve. I understand that this can be pretty disappointing following sustained effort, but I do hope it's clear that the below feedback is just against the GAN standards and not a dismissal of the great work you've done. Remember that you can always continue to develop and improve the article and re-nominate at any time. I hope the feedback can help! Reach out if you have any questions.

Criteria

1. Well written?: The article contains some awkward phrasing that could be improved, but is otherwise reasonably well written and has been subject to plenty of review and improvement.

2. Verifiable?: The article leans moderately on blogs and minor independent news sites to establish the game's content and reception. Reliable sources like under WP:VG/S are occasionally used, but not always preferred, and do not form the backbone of the article, possibly as significant coverage does not lie under the article's more reliable sources. There are a few sticky if not particularly controversial statements that are not corroborated by the sources.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article includes a lot of minutiae that interferes with the focus and brevity of the text. WP:VGSCOPE may be helpful in distinguishing what information to include and exclude. The article's development section is very unclear at times and has limited development information.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Comments

Below are some comments about the page from my perspective. Please note that these aren't all really determinative of the status of GAN, and some come more from a purpose of identifying potential areas of improvement of the article in general.

Headline

• No complaints here, it is a good summary of the contents of the article.

Gameplay

•  Done As WP:MOS, the section can probably be shortened to 'Gameplay'. If the game does not contain much of a plot, it makes sense to merge these sections, otherwise they are better off separated.
  • Changed section name to "Gameplay"
•  Done Inspired by the folktale Jack and the Beanstalk - You may like to place this in the development section with further context as it is more a design influence than aspect of gameplay.
  • Moved
•  Done...in order to escape poverty. The player must reach space for Jackie to discover what life he could have. - This isn't clear and the sources don't quite explain it. Are there sources that outline what the plot and objective of the game are, or is it the game kind of light on that?
  • Removed. The sources say that the plot was mentioned on the game's Steam page, so I decided "yeah, this'll fit" and put it in the article. As for sources, I don't think any of them focus on that. The plot is merely implied by Jackie's inner thoughts.
•  Done The section is quite light on gameplay information, but I understand this seems to be a Unity-based platforming game where there aren't exactly many sophisticated mechanics to talk about.
  • There aren't really that many mechanics.

Development and release

•  DoneLittle is known about the studio that produced the game - Whilst this may seem self-evident, unless this observation is sourced, it isn't an independent and verifiable statement to make. It also probably indicates that the article lacks enough information to convey broad coverage.
  • Removed.
•  Done The information about the update might be WP:GAMECRUFT. Is the update in itself notable? Otherwise, it could be a helpful addition to describing gameplay features and controls.
  • Kept. I've read the Wikipedia page, and I believe it doesn't fall under WP:GAMECRUFT. You can argue that this is only mentioned by one source, but I'm still keeping that update in. I will say that this update made the game less difficult than it already is.
•  Done...gained popularity in China and Japan, where many VTubers from there played it - Awkward phrasing. This point is also based on speculation by Automaton and may be better described as the initial user base of the game was based in China and Japan, where the game originated.
  • Rephrased to "Upon releasing on May 24, 2023, Only Up's initial user base was based in China and Japan, where the game originated." However, I'd say the word "demographic" would work better than the phrase "user base". Also, I'm pretty sure the game was first developed in South Korea, not Japan, but I couldn't find any reliable sources to prove that SCKR Games is in South Korea.
•  Doneseveral livestreamers and speedrunners have rage quit - This is minutiae that probably isn't notable. At best, it could be used as a point supporting the game's reception about its difficulty.
  • Kept, for now. How about this source? It writes that "Only Up faced almost as much criticism, primarily aimed at its inclusion of NFT references, lack of gameplay features such as a save function and accusations of using another developer’s copyrighted assets". I'll try to find more reliable sources, but if I can't, I'll move that statement to the reception section.
•  Done ...due to the amount of stress it had on them- More context is probably needed if available to describe what this means.
  • I should expand this. The sources provided are reliable, and not enough is pulled out of them. Somebody expanded this already.
•  Done Is the Sketchfab copyright violation particularly notable when much of the game was considered to be an asset flip? Otherwise the extent of the details about what the model was seems very specific.
  • I believe it was the first copyright violation that was noticed, as most of the sources used mention Abolicious's statue.
•  Done The Promotions of non-fungible tokens section is probably also fairly vestigial in its current state, focusing more on the Steam ban. It's also not entirely linked because from what I understand the game does not facilitate buying or selling NFTs in itself. The sources look like they feature more speculation on the extent to which the game was intended to associate with the Goblintown NFT series. This section probably needs a rethink in terms of how it is framed.
  • I did find some sources about how the Goblintown NFT series profited from Only Up, but I'm really not sure how reliable they could be. I haven't asked the Reliable Sources Noticeboard yet, and see this Teahouse post. Update: I tried adding more info to the NFT section. I will delete it if it's completely unrelated.
    • Second update: I've asked the RSN now.

Reception and legacy

•  Done The sourcing of the article, especially its reception, is adequate for a normal article but poor against a GA standard. Most of the sources other than TechRadar are not recognised as common, reliable sources as per WP:VG/S. This doesn't make an article bad, but it does make the quality of the information in the article generally a little lower absent reliable mainstream coverage.
  • There aren't really that many reviews. I've searched on Metacritic, and there are only two publications that have reviewed the game. If you can somehow find more reviews, please message me on my talk page and I'll see if they add anything important to the article. There are more reviews, but they're mostly blogs (I guess I can use them).
•  Done It's good that you have taken the approach to thematically group observations of reviews around the topics of the game's graphical optimisation and obstacle-based gameplay. However, identifying what information in a review is best to capture is also important. For instance, the TechRadar quote about the likely player reaction is an unusual angle that isn't informative about the game. It's important to focus on what reviewers thought about the qualities of the game itself to help inform a reader. For instance, TechRadar's praise is about the challenge from the gameplay due to the lack of a checkpoint system, and the constant movement and pace of the game.
  • Ah. Thanks.
•  Done For its gameplay... - This statement is probably redundant and can be removed.
  • Removed. One more thing: Do you have any constructive criticism for the "OnlyUp Fortnite" section?

Clone on steam

A game titled "Only Up" made by MoreMoto Games was released on Steam on Oct 3. Its an obvious rip-off made to capitalize on the actual game not being on steam. Should it be mentioned in the article? Bbf242 (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Are there any other reliable sources that mention this game? Otherwise, I can't add it in. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

If we included every Only Up! ripoff and copy, the article would be too long. WP:NOTDATABASE says so. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough Bbf242 (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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:Only Up!/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 03:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi! This looks very interesting. I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing. I hope this article passes; I would hate to see another quick fail. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it certainly could get to GA status! Let's resolve the sourcing issues and then I'll continue on with the prose and rest of the review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 I have finished evaluating the sources. May we continue with the review? Thanks, Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 03:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC).

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	* I think 'Reception and legacy' should just be 'Reception'. The Fortnite map isn't precisely "legacy" and would still work just fine in the section. As per my usual practice, I've made tweaks to the prose myself to save us both time. If there are any changes you don't like, just let me know or change them back and we can discuss! Provisional pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. 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).	Lots of sources I am unfamiliar with - need to look into these. I see this was also a topic of discussion in the first GA review. Can you make a case for Spiel Times being a reliable source? Appears to just be one person's blog. Can you make a case for AppTrigger being a reliable source? The steam post re: Abolicious is probably not OR, but it's non-independent, and a secondary source would be preferable if we have one that mentions this. What is the Softonic source, exactly? Softonic, as best I can tell, is a web host/portal, not a journalistic outfit. Is this just a blog? A couple sources, like the Lyons Gamereactor review or the Dexerto one, are duplicated. Please combine these so there are no duplications. Can you make a case for Try Hard Guides being a reliable source? Game Rant and TechRaptor have not been found to be generally reliable. If possible, especially where more than one source may cover the same information, please remove these and replace with other cites. Can you make a case for TechAU/Jason Cartwright being a reliable source/worth including? Appears to be just one guy's blog. Is he considered an influential gaming blogger? Issues addressed! Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Citing the Sketchfab model itself seems to be skirting the line for OR. If possible, replace the cite for this information with a secondary source. Assuming that the nominator (@TrademarkedTarantula:) will get to this if they can, it's not enough to keep the article from GA. Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds nothing, hold for manual spot check. Nothing found, pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Unable to find other significant areas of coverage.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues of overdetail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No outstanding issues, pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Two appropriately tagged fair use images. I want to double-check that a video is acceptable as a fair use "screenshot", but on first spec I think it's not a problem. Provisional pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass, no problems.
	7. Overall assessment.

Reliability concerns

• SpielTimes: This article is written by Icon Roy, who is a journalism graduate. It used to be a single-person website, but now there's staff behind it: This page states that in order for a person to join SpielTimes, they must "possess great knowledge about the field they will apply for." However, they don't examine a person's resume, but rather their past work or portfolio. There is an editor-in-chief, but... I could easily replace this with another source because it's a basic part of the game. -> Replaced citation with Rock Paper Shotgun.
• AppTrigger: Removed. I figured that source can easily be replaced. -> Replaced citation with Kotaku.
• Abolicious post: Added IGN citation, but kept primary source (it's important to have the full message).
• Please explain duplicated.

• For instance, current cite #22 (Lyons, Ben (July 13, 2023). "Only Up!". Gamereactor. Retrieved September 17, 2023) appears to be exactly the same as cite #25 (Lyons, Ben (July 13, 2023). "Only Up!". Gamereactor. Retrieved September 17, 2023.) You can combine these in visual editor by simply deleting the duplicate and copying/pasting the other identical citation in its place. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Should be fixed now. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 23:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The Elie Gould piece is also duplicated. I don't see any others with a quick scan but please doublecheck. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done That should be everything. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 23:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• GameRant and TechRaptor: Removed.
• Sources for reception: There are no reliable sources I could find. Metacritic doesn't show anything good. I guess the TechRadar review is the only one that's actually worth using in the reception section.

• Not sure what you mean - Automaton Media, Techradar, Gamereactor, Dexerto, should all be fine. And if you can make a reasonable case for Try Hard Games and TechAU, they would work too. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Softonic: You're right. It's a web portal with sponsored articles. Removed. Also, see this discussion at the RSN.
• TechAU: The article I'm using is written by a guy who has years of experience in journalism. I'm guessing it's worthy for inclusion. Also, the website states that they are independent from all subjects. However, there may be a slight chance this article is sponsored: this might be concerning. Kept review.
• Try Hard Guides: They claim that they've been mentioned in other video game publications. Not sure how I'll verify that, but assuming that's true, I guess that makes it somewhat credible. The people on the editorial team have credentials: [1] and [2]. Kept review.

• All looks fair enough! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:17, 12 November 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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Only Up! was removed from Steam twice: once after a copyright violation and again after SCKR Games, the indie developer behind the game, was stressed? Source: [3]: "The model in question is listed on Sketchfab, which explicitly states its for non-commercial use. Only Up! is a $10 game, and it’s being used to make money, which goes directly against the guidelines set out." and [4]: "The post added that the developer plans to “take a pause” and continue their education..."
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is my first GA and DYK, so hopefully I did everything right.

Improved to Good Article status by TrademarkedTarantula (talk). Self-nominated at 03:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Only Up!; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - See below
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @TrademarkedTarantula: Could you clarify what makes Dexerto, In The Know, TechAU, and Try Hard Guides reliable sources? Furthermore, please consider this slightly shortened hook:

• ALT0a: ... that Only Up! was removed from sale twice: once over copyright violations and again to alleviate the developer's stress?

Lastly, albeit strictly optional in the scope of this DYK, I think you should mention the numerous clones that have been created. Sources include this one, which I found on a whim. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 10:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Just passing by this nom, but I noticed Dexerto does have an editorial policy, physical address and staff listed, which is a good sign [5]. Not so good, there was an RfC at the reliable sources noticeboard to deprecate it (the RfC did not pass). ☆ Bri (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
• For TechAU and Try Hard Guides, I've discussed their reliability here. Not so sure about In The Know... I'll have to delete it. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 07:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Point taken in regards to Try Hard Guides, and it appears Dexerto is considered situational per WP:VG/RS. I also found that In the Know is part of Yahoo!; assuming it is held to similar standards, it might be reliable after all. The author of that particular review also has creds. On the other hand, I think TechAU should be removed: The editor's only relevant experience is with the site itself. You should consider listing them at WT:VG/RS at some point, although this is out-of-scope for this DYK and I don't want to hold it up for too long. IceWelder [✉] 12:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Re ALT0a, I like its conciseness. However, I'd like to make a few changes to it:
ALT0b: ...that Only Up! was removed from Steam twice: once over copyright violations and again to alleviate the developer's stress?
Re TechAU usage, I have removed the source from the article. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 06:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The article looks fine now. Happy to approve ALT0b. Cheers, IceWelder [✉] 10:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)