Talk:Only Up!/GA1

GA Review

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

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?