Talk:Serious Sam Advance

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Alexandra IDV (talk · contribs) 05:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I will review this.--Alexandra^IDV 05:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

• The staff members are completely unsourced, and not mentioned outside the infobox. If you cannot find any mention of them in RSs, citing the game's end credits or manual might be an option.
  •  Done: Sourced to the credits (where I got them from, obviously). IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• Would recommend mentioning that it is a video game early on - something like Serious Sam Advance (also marketed as Serious Sam) is a 2004 first-person shooter game
  •  Done: Added "game". "Video game" is probably redundant as there are no FPS games that are not video games. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• The platform is a key fact for a video game, and should be presented early in the lead, while announcement dates are more trivial - I would suggest striking the sentence Global Star Software announced the game in January 2004 and released it for the Game Boy Advance in April. and tweaking the first sentence into [...] developed by Climax London and published by Global Star Software for the Game Boy Advance.
  •  Done. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Advance received a mixed reception, - does a game receive reception? At best it sounds repetitive, and I would recommend changing into something like "received mixed reviews".
  •  Done. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Gameplay

• We've already established that the player character is Sam - I don't see the need to then refer to him more vaguely as "the player character" after that.
  •  Done. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• We don't usually mention specific controls (A button does this, etc) in gameplay sections, but I suppose it is fine here as it is very brief.
  • Yeah, I figured it could be done here since the game is only on one platform with a fixed control scheme. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Do all players in the deathmatch mode play as Sam?
  • The online character models are unidentifiable Sam-likes. See this screenshot, for example. No source goes into this detail, so I excluded it. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Plot

• It is a bit unclear to me, as I have not played this game - do the events in the first paragraph take place in a flashback / before the main story of the game? If so, that should be made more clear. If not, they should be written in present tense.
  • All contents of the first paragraph come from a textual introduction (one page seen here) with events that happened before the actual game. Not sure how to phrase this. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• from a mission to 2113's Abu Simbel, Egypt - "Abu Simbel in 2113". Additionally, time travel has not been mentioned yet, so I would recommend writing something like "from a time-travel mission" for clarity.
• "travel time" is non-standard - either go with "travel through time" or "time travel"
  •  Done. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• the ancient Rome of 512 BCE - as above, "Ancient Rome in 512 BCE" is clearer
  •  Done. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• "Suddenly" is a filler word that does not add anything. If you mean to say that Mental surprises Sam, and that that is important, then say so instead
  •  Done: I noted this with an in-line comment also: Sam wants to go home but then Mental does something (very poorly explained in the game) that gets Sam to Rome instead. This is despite Sam being destined to go to Rome in the first place. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• There is no context for who the Wolfinator and the Sirian Sphinx are.
  •  Done: Mentioned that the Sirian Sphinx is a "more powerful minion" of Mental. The context should carry over to the Wolfinator. I would like to mention both since they are the bosses in the respective areas, but their identity is not explained in the game in any way. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Development

• Serious Sam Advance was developed by Climax Group through its Climax London studio.[5][6] The studio was composed of former developers from the defunct company Crawfish Interactive, and the team employed a game engine utilising ray casting to simulate 3D computer graphics on the Game Boy Advance, a technique Crawfish Interactive had pioneered for the platform. - There is no logical connection between "the studio was composed of ex-crawfish staff" and "the team used ray-casting", making it feel very strange to present the facts like this in a single sentence. I would connect the crawfish stuff with the first sentence instead - something like "by Climax Grou's studio Climax London, which was composed of former staff from the defunct company Crawfish Interactive."
  •  Done: Unfortunately, this conjunction creates a ref triplet: One confirms Climax Group, one the name of the responsible studio (Climax London), and one the studio's composition. It is not ideal but I guess it has to be to get decent wording. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Take-Two Interactive confirmed the games anew in March. - what does this mean?
  •  Done: Eurogamer ran a story on Take-Two mentioning it in a financial report. Reading this again, I thought it was unnecessary and removed it. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Global Star Software announced on 14 April 2004 that it had shipped both games for their respective platforms for the North American market. is a roundabout and indirect way of phrasing it - the announcement isn't important, the release is. Try something like "Global Star Software released Serious Sam Advance in North America on 14 April 2004, simultaneously with Serious Sam: Next Encounter."
  •  Done. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Reception

• Serious Sam Advance received "mixed or average reviews", according to review aggregator website Metacritic, which calculated a normalised rating of 51/100 based on nine critic reviews. - lots of data that doesn't mean anything to the layperson reader we should be writing for, especially when the MC score already exists in the review table. I would simplify this to "Serious Sam Advance received mixed reviews according to the review aggregator Metacritic."
  •  Done: Removed the score part but kept the first part intact: I reckon quoting Metacritic is the common practice and I think it fits fine here. I also retained "review aggregator website" so I could bluelink "review aggregator" without violating MOS:SEAOFBLUE. If either of this is a problem, do tell. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Reception seems otherwise okay - it's a bit short, but I suppose this was a relatively minor game, so that's to be expected.
  • Exactly, there are so few reviews that it was difficult to write up any kind of reception. Unfortunately, I could recover the Nintendo Power review. Should I find it someday, I will add the contents here. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

References

• Standard RSs and some press releases to fill out other basic information - seems fine

Images

• The images and their fair use rationales seem fine.

Suggestions/notes (not part of GA, but things I would bring up in a peer review or FA review)

• I would recommend adding brief alt text to the images, to aid readers with impaired vision.
  • Since this is optional for now, I'd like to put it off until my Serious Sam GT so I can put effort into creating aligned alt-texts for all articles. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Is "Serious Sam Advance" really a long enough title to warrant shortening it to "Advance"?
  • You're right,  Done. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@IceWelder: A few issues, but none that seem too major. I have put this review on hold for seven days - ping me when you have addressed the issues above or if you have any questions.--Alexandra^IDV 06:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alexandra IDV: Thanks for the review. I made some changes and left some per-point comments. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I will go ahead and promote this to GA now~! I did make one edit to the plot section - feel free to tweak it further, but I think something like that is needed.--Alexandra^IDV 09:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

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 Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the video game Serious Sam Advance uses ray casting to simulate 3D computer graphics on the Game Boy Advance? Source: "Unfortunately, in game design the Serious Sam style [of Serious Sam Advance] isn't tailored very well for a raycasting engine on hardware [of the Game Boy Advance] that has a hard time keeping a smooth framerate in 3D engines.", Serious Sam (corresponds to ref #2)

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1902 FA Cup Final

Improved to Good Article status by IceWelder (talk). Self-nominated at 11:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC).

• Just noting I’m starting this review, as I know it’s been waiting for some time! Innisfree987 (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This subject is well outside my wheelhouse so an especially enlightening read and written well for a general audience. QPQ done; entry neutral, recent, long enough. One site pings Earwig but looks to be a reverse copyvio—I think someone copied from this entry for a school assignment (another kind of good article validation!) One small query I have is about the hook. Now that I’ve read the entry and sources I understand and find it definitely interesting, but I think in DYK format the current phrasing will be lost on any non-gaming readers. I would propose a trim:

• ALT1: ... that the video game Serious Sam Advance uses ray casting to simulate 3D computer graphics?

With the idea of having just one likely unfamiliar term (ray casting) helping it be more intriguing than bewildering (I didn’t know what a Game Boy Advance was either so the hook was initially a bit like Greek to me.) If you don’t mind my making a suggestion for the entry, it might be worth adding a single sentence elaborating on what exactly ray casting is, as I think those who click through on this hook may be curious—I was!

What do you think, IceWelder? Innisfree987 (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Innisfree987, thanks for the review! You're right that the hook is a bit techy, though I think mentioning the Game Boy Advance is crucial: The GBA was popularly known for being incapable of adequately rendering 3D graphics, so I thought it was interesting that the developers circumvented this. If I was to trim the hook, I would instead do something like this:

• ALT1a: ... that the video game Serious Sam Advance simulates 3D computer graphics on the Game Boy Advance?
• ALT1b: ... that the video game Serious Sam Advance employs ray casting on the Game Boy Advance?

I realise that it is likely that a large portion of the Wikipedia readership wouldn't know this fact about the GBA, even if I could imagine a scenario where a reader would read the article just to find out "what the heck" the hook is talking about (which would indeed be very hooky). Here is also an alternative, less techy hook:

• ALT2: ... that the development team of Serious Sam Advance was composed of former staff from the defunct company Crawfish Interactive?

Suffice to say, I would prefer ALT0, ALT1a or (though lesser) ALT1b. Of course, which one is passed is ultimately up to you. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 08:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all these options! ALT1a works for me if it does for you, so I’ve ticked that. I’ll leave 1b and 2 unstruck as I think they could work too, if the promoter has any concern but I think 1a is legible and the reasons for it are good. Thanks IceWelder! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)