Talk:Spark the Electric Jester 2

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spark the Electric Jester 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bluecrystal004 (talk · contribs) 22:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this article; if I haven't reviewed in one week please ping me. Bluecrystal004 (talk · contribs) 22:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Stability - page history is almost entirely the nominator

Copyright

Images - both have robust fair-use rationales

Infobox

Lead

• the titular character's robotic counterpart, Fark - can say "Spark's robotic counterpart" or better, just "a robot named Fark on his quest.."
  • Done. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Unlike the first game, Spark 2 features 3D gameplay. - To make the prose flow more sensibly, I'd put this sentence at the end of the paragraph.
  • I agree that it doesn't flow well but I think it makes more sequential sense to establish the 3D graphics first before describing the gameplay (Here's some articles that do that). I've revised an earlier sentence in the paragraph to include this information. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• "Journalists" -> "Critics" (do this in Reception section as well)
  • Done. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• and journalists struggled with navigating through high-speed and vertical loop sections. - I would say "criticized the sections" not "struggled" with them.
  • Done. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Gameplay

• Citations to in-game messages are a bit unorthodox, but if they worked for IceWelder on the first game's article then they'll work for me. My only concern is this: if no reviews or reliable sources cover a gameplay mechanic, it might not be worth including in this article. For example, something like "spamming the move will slow Fark down." seems like maybe an unnecessary detail. It would also help readability to remove some citations to in-game messages where reliable sources cover more or less the same information, like collecting concept art in the game.
  • Removed the spamming detail, in-game concept art citation, and Tour Mode coverage. Beyond that I'm a little hesitant to remove much else, as the remaining information seems relevant and I don't want the section to become disproportionate to the plot summary. If it's still an issue I can trim it down further. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• in exchange for Bits, a currency obtained in the levels. - I would just cut this part out, the citation for "a currency obtained in the levels" is not sufficient
  • Done. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• ...unlock Tour Mode. The feature consists of... - for better flow I'd string these together with a comma
  • See previous comment. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Plot

• It's redundant and unnecessary to put citations in the plot section, except if citing reliable secondary sources; it's implied that the source is the video game itself.
  • Done. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• After the defeat of Freom in the previous game, Fark is in the care of Doctor Armstrong - remove "in the previous game" during a plot description
  • Done. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• has orders to kill Fark given to him by Freom -> "has orders from Freom to kill Fark."
  • Done. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• A little confusing - Freom was defeated, is he still commanding an army?
  • The game doesn't make any mention of an army like the first one does. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Upon the sight of numerous idle clones of himself, E.J is impaled by Astra. - bit of an awkward sentence; are they clones of Astra or E.J? Why are there clones? What do they have to do with the impaling?
  • E.J. There's not much of a reason why the clones are there other than to emphasize how disposable he is, as E.J serves as a punching bag in the cutscenes, but they're completely irrelevant to the story outside of that one scene. The clones don't seem to be related to the impaling either but I mentioned them anyway since it's presented as a big twist. Either way, I've removed that detail to avoid any confusion and because of its aforementioned insignificance. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• What is the Apocalypse Thruster?
  • A rocket. Revised the article to clarify this. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Fark rejects Freom's offer and fights a remote body of his. - is a remote body like a clone? Is it a body of Fark or Freom?
  • Not a clone. It's a robotic body Freom operates remotely. I'm not really sure how to articulate it more specifically/clearly but I've clarified that the body is operated by him. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty confused by the last few sentences or so. Is Freom lying about Clarity and Armstrong? Does Clarity actually intend on killing everything? If so, what happens with that plot point?

• It's left up in the air. The third game does address those questions but Spark 2 doesn't provide any definite conclusions (See for yourself). The story is just ambiguous and unresolved like that. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Development and release

• Like the first Spark the Electric Jester (2017), Spark the Electric Jester 2 was created by Felipe Daneluz. Development began after the release of its predecessor using Hedge Physics - A few things. First, is there really no source saying who developed this game? Reliable secondary sources are always preferable. Second, remove (2017).
  • Done. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• "hadn't" -> "had not"
  • Done. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• "rationalized" -> "thought" or "felt"
  • Done. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• When addressing the game's final name, he reasoned that it was a direct sequel to Spark the Electric Jester. - This is sort of a confusing sentence. I think it would be more clear to say something like "He decided on the final name of Spark the Electric Jester 2, because it was a direct sequel to the first game." or something
  • Done. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Alongside Sonic - maybe "Besides Sonic the Hedgehog," is more clear for a reader, I'm not sure
  • The article already refers to the Sonic franchise by its full name once but just to be safe I went with it. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• The soundtrack was composed by the same musicians from Spark the Electric Jester - "from" -> "as"
  • Done. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Reception

• However, in another Rock Paper Shotgun article penned by Dominic Tarason, he... - Should not imply that these two articles are related, they aren't.
  • Done. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• He felt the combat was the game's weakest aspect - Roemer or Tarason?
  • Roemer. Edited the sentence to clarify this. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Roemer wrote, "For the first time, I think I understand now where Sonic Team was coming from with that decision ... it can be an absolute mess during a first playthrough." - Try to paraphrase this quote, see next point as well.
• Maybe clarify the specific comparisons to the Sonic Adventure games, "more automated sections" and Roemer's quote don't make a lot of sense to a broader audience who hasn't played Sonic games.
  • Done. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• In comparison to its predecessor, Tarason and Roemer summarized Spark 2 as "a good time" and "a solid experience overall", but less polished and suffering from "a bit of an identity crisis". - Make it more clear who said which quotes, especially the "bit of an identity crisis" one.
  • Done. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Sequel

• Similar to Spark 2, the game is a 3D platformer and was released on August 14, 2022, via Steam. - This should be two separate sentences
  • Done. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

References

• Spotchecked this version of the article
• Ref 1a:
• Ref 2h:
• Ref 2i:
• Ref 8: "GREATHER" -> "GREATER"
• Ref 9:
• Ref 10b:
• Ref 27d:
• Ref 37:

@LBWP: I'm sorry for the lengthy wait for this review. This should be the bulk of my thoughts on the article. Feel free to check them off as you address them. ~Bluecrystal004 ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bluecrystal004: It's cool. It's a bit of a peculiar article so I understand if you needed more time. I've addressed your comments. LBWP (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@LBWP: Article looks good. I made some a few minor changes of my own as well. Thanks for your work on this article, passing it now. ~Bluecrystal004 ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)