GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 10:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing the article. CR4ZE (t) 10:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- In its current state, the article would fail based on the quality of the prose. I find several instances of confusing syntax, and poor word choices. However, I'll certainly give time to work on this. I'd suggest reading the entire article aloud first, and then making changes from there based on what doesn't sound clear. Here's a few problem sentences I've noticed.
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- In the lead, please clarify who "others" are. Try "other developers"?
- Please find a better way you can sum up the game's reception without saying it received "universal acclaim" according to Metacritic. These kind of sentences borrow too heavily on a review aggregate and can become contentious.
- In Gameplay: "The number tiles each have their own personalities and new high number tile are introduced with a screen full of confetti when unlocked". Very muddled sentence.
- In Development: "Their company is Sirvo LLC." Can you elaborate, or alternatively merge into another sentence?
- "The two had previously collaborated with Threes composer". Lose "Threes".
- "Speaking in retrospect, Wohlwend said the game was "always wanted to be simple"[1] and ended up with its original theme of numbers". Muddled tenses, probably a typo.
- "and the soundtrack was composed by Jimmy Hinson". This has already been stated in an earlier paragraph.
- In Reception: "It was an honorable mention". Try "it was honorably mentioned".
- In this written context, "accessible" and "simple" are basically synonymous, so please clarify the intended statement.
- "TouchArcade compared the escalation [...] addictive mechanics to Sudoku". This sentence could either be split in two, or broken up with commas.
- "Re/code's Eric Johnson likened the game as a descendant". I don't think you can "liken [x] as a descendant". It sounds odd to me.
- "CNET thought the music became repetitive and that the tile voices were creepy". Please replace the word "creepy".
- That's not a comprehensive list. I'd suggest having a copy-edit done.
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- Had never heard of TouchArcade before, but after background checking on Eli Hodapp it seems okay. However, as it isn't at WP:VG/RS, I'll have to get consensus that it's okay to use first. Also, please make sure that for statements supported by a number of sources, the footnotes are arranged sequentially. Swap footnotes 6 and 7 over in Gameplay, and do the same for the first paragraph of Reception.
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- All three images look good to me. Unfortunately I can't pass until the OTRS is completed. In the meantime I would move File:Greg Wohlwend and Asher Vollmer (Puzzlejuice) at the 2012 PAX 10.JPG over to the left so that not all supplemental media are on the right side of the page. Looks more organised, at least in my opinion.
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- The captions for the thumbnail images are too brief and don't explain the context of the image. File:Threes video game trailer.gif needs alt text.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- A lot of work needs to be done on the prose. The article can't pass in the meantime until the images have been cleared as okay at the Commons, and I also need an "okay" for the use of TouchArcade. CR4ZE (t) 11:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
_at_the_2012_PAX_10.JPG){kind=link}
Discussion
editThanks for the review. I revised for all of your feedback except where noted below.
- Re: the prose, I can appreciate your attention to the sticking points, but per WP:GACN, the scope of of the prose review is for the confusing sentences and not about choice of phrase. I really do appreciate the feedback outside the review, but I want to be clear about what is needed.
- Expanded lede's development section
- I don't foresee TouchArcade being an issue at WPVG/RS
- Ordering multiple footnotes in ascending order is a matter of preference (and outside GA scope—additionally, I personally prefer having the most relevant footnote come first, regardless of its automatic ordering)
- Why wouldn't you be able to pass until OTRS is completed?
- Alt text is not within GA review scope
- I thought the direct quote from Metacritic was actually the most objective summary of critic reviews without dipping into a more OR summary
- The game was "an honorable mention" so I think that's okay
czar ♔ 20:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
No problem.
- I didn't think TouchArcade would be an issue either, but it's better safe than sorry. I'll add it to the checklist for future users.
- The content appears to be free, however it was provided in an email exchange between you and (the very helpful and generous) creators. I'd need to have that verified first, seeing as the only way the images were provided was in private exchanges no-one else can see.
- Alt text is checked at FAC, but that doesn't mean articles don't need it until they are nominated at FAC. It doesn't hurt having it whatever point on the quality scale the article is. However, the updated caption basically does the job now.
- It'd be the other way around; aggregate sites should be handled with care because of the processes they use to determine what games receive "universal acclaim". WP:VG/RS#Review sites. They help in your research when you're gauging overall how the product was received, but there's better choices to make rather than citing them in the lead. Consider the following FA-Class examples: Batman: Arkham Asylum, BioShock, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - none mention Metacritic at all in the lead and the writers don't use it in the respective Reception section's opening sentences, instead justifying the claim "[x] received critical acclaim" through the number of reliable sources who gave the game high scores. CR4ZE (t) 00:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I asked about the OTRS holdup at the GA help page—I would imagine it's okay to AGF since I submitted the stuff to OTRS a month ago and their backlog is out of my hands. We'll see what they say. I actually did the alt text in my last batch of edits, but wanted to note that WP:GACN explicitly says it isn't required. I understand your position on Metacritic and I'm aware how the other articles do it. I'd still contend that it's more neutral and less OR to cite a RS's aggregate stance on the game's reviews overall instead of determining that for myself with soft language (and then almost all articles either say "critical acclaim" or "well received" or "mixed reviews" in the lede, which, eh, I'd say cheapens the language we have for these situations). Are the other recent edits good for your purposes? Thanks again for your help. czar ♔ 01:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Coming here from Wikipedia:Good article help, my suggestion is to remove any problematic content/images so that the article can pass, and then when the problems are resolved in the future, make a note on the talk page and restore the content/images. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Good idea—I did that. This GA is on the talk page, so that should be enough for now. I also pinged Commons OTRS to see if the ticket can be expedited. czar ♔ 04:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- That is a good idea. Feel free to add the images back in once the OTRS is completed. As User:Rschen7754 suggested, I'd reach out to someone to get it done so that the images can go back in sooner. With that taken care of, I feel the article is nearly ready.
- Good idea—I did that. This GA is on the talk page, so that should be enough for now. I also pinged Commons OTRS to see if the ticket can be expedited. czar ♔ 04:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Coming here from Wikipedia:Good article help, my suggestion is to remove any problematic content/images so that the article can pass, and then when the problems are resolved in the future, make a note on the talk page and restore the content/images. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I asked about the OTRS holdup at the GA help page—I would imagine it's okay to AGF since I submitted the stuff to OTRS a month ago and their backlog is out of my hands. We'll see what they say. I actually did the alt text in my last batch of edits, but wanted to note that WP:GACN explicitly says it isn't required. I understand your position on Metacritic and I'm aware how the other articles do it. I'd still contend that it's more neutral and less OR to cite a RS's aggregate stance on the game's reviews overall instead of determining that for myself with soft language (and then almost all articles either say "critical acclaim" or "well received" or "mixed reviews" in the lede, which, eh, I'd say cheapens the language we have for these situations). Are the other recent edits good for your purposes? Thanks again for your help. czar ♔ 01:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- However, I still have to disagree with you on the use of Metacritic's "universal acclaim" handle. One of the problems that I have is that the word "universal" to me comes across as WP:PEACOCK. From Collins, "universal" is defined as "of, relating to, or typical of the whole of mankind or of nature". I think it gives too much weight. The key distinguishing factor that I make therefore is that terms like "[x] received critical acclaim" or "[x] received very positive reviews" negate the ambiguity behind the term "universal". I'd disagree that it's less neutral and leaning towards OR, because the fact that you have five reviews in the table giving no less than an 8/10 score plus reviews providing good comments within the prose justifies the claim. Perhaps we get a WP:THIRDOPINION? CR4ZE (t) 07:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in a third opinion as well. WT:VG#Using Metacritic's summary in prose should direct someone here. czar ♔ 12:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- While I've always been very against the term "universal acclaim" if its the editor's summary of the situation, I'm okay with it if its a summary given by an aggregator like MC, and attributed to it as such. I do prefer the wording/order present in the lead though, where the critical acclaim comment is mentioned after the introduction of MC, as it more directly attributes it to MC. So, I find it more preferable if its in the set up of The game received XX% score based on X reviews, at Metacritic, indicating "critical acclaim". Anyways, just my two cents...though I've seen it so much amongst the project, I'd assume its the way its typically handled. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agree w/ Sergecross. "Universal" is a peacock word and one to avoid if introduced by a WPian, but if a separate source uses the term and can be cited, that's fine. Peacock words are those that introduce opinion, even unintentionally, and like all statements of opinion, if they come from a separate source and sourced directly to that, that removes the bias issue that a WPian using the term would create. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Even if it's cited from Metacritic it doesn't remove the fact that the word is a point of contention. For example, one reviewer might say "[x] is amazing in every conceivable way" but we would paraphrase such an attribution by stating "John Doe particularly enjoyed the game". The point that I make is that if there is one way of composing a sentence using peacock language, even if it's attributed to a source, wouldn't it be better to neutrally paraphrase and make the subject of the sentence the game instead of the aggregator? CR4ZE (t) 14:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's appropriate to include something like "John Doe wrote, '[x] is amazing in every conceivable way'" to embellish a point about a work's reception, although of course one shouldn't go overboard. I'm uneasy about the "universal" part, though; if there's even one review that gives the work anything less than acclaim, it doesn't have universal acclaim. Rather, I think it's safer to sheath the phrase "universal acclaim" into a sentence that clearly indicates that this is the opinion of Metacritic, who, while reliable, aren't infallible. Tezero (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- As written, the current lede and reception mentions both do that "sheathing" (direct attribution and quoting) czar ♔ 16:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it does look better now. Tezero (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- In the context of a GAN and not an FAC, sheathing as you have done would be at least acceptable. I still do not think it's the best option, but at this stage it will suffice. I think that as a community we need to have a discussion about this and establish some better policy. We don't have a clear policy on summarising an entertainment product's reception, and instead it's a by-case situation based on the editor's preference. There's strong opinions either way, and there's some cases where such language has been cleared through a GAN even though it is not attributed to a source. You need only look at the Yeezus article and the wide, ongoing debate around the use of the word "rave". We need to have our guidelines outlined better to avoid future headaches for editors. CR4ZE (t) 01:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it does look better now. Tezero (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- As written, the current lede and reception mentions both do that "sheathing" (direct attribution and quoting) czar ♔ 16:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's appropriate to include something like "John Doe wrote, '[x] is amazing in every conceivable way'" to embellish a point about a work's reception, although of course one shouldn't go overboard. I'm uneasy about the "universal" part, though; if there's even one review that gives the work anything less than acclaim, it doesn't have universal acclaim. Rather, I think it's safer to sheath the phrase "universal acclaim" into a sentence that clearly indicates that this is the opinion of Metacritic, who, while reliable, aren't infallible. Tezero (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Even if it's cited from Metacritic it doesn't remove the fact that the word is a point of contention. For example, one reviewer might say "[x] is amazing in every conceivable way" but we would paraphrase such an attribution by stating "John Doe particularly enjoyed the game". The point that I make is that if there is one way of composing a sentence using peacock language, even if it's attributed to a source, wouldn't it be better to neutrally paraphrase and make the subject of the sentence the game instead of the aggregator? CR4ZE (t) 14:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agree w/ Sergecross. "Universal" is a peacock word and one to avoid if introduced by a WPian, but if a separate source uses the term and can be cited, that's fine. Peacock words are those that introduce opinion, even unintentionally, and like all statements of opinion, if they come from a separate source and sourced directly to that, that removes the bias issue that a WPian using the term would create. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- While I've always been very against the term "universal acclaim" if its the editor's summary of the situation, I'm okay with it if its a summary given by an aggregator like MC, and attributed to it as such. I do prefer the wording/order present in the lead though, where the critical acclaim comment is mentioned after the introduction of MC, as it more directly attributes it to MC. So, I find it more preferable if its in the set up of The game received XX% score based on X reviews, at Metacritic, indicating "critical acclaim". Anyways, just my two cents...though I've seen it so much amongst the project, I'd assume its the way its typically handled. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in a third opinion as well. WT:VG#Using Metacritic's summary in prose should direct someone here. czar ♔ 12:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- However, I still have to disagree with you on the use of Metacritic's "universal acclaim" handle. One of the problems that I have is that the word "universal" to me comes across as WP:PEACOCK. From Collins, "universal" is defined as "of, relating to, or typical of the whole of mankind or of nature". I think it gives too much weight. The key distinguishing factor that I make therefore is that terms like "[x] received critical acclaim" or "[x] received very positive reviews" negate the ambiguity behind the term "universal". I'd disagree that it's less neutral and leaning towards OR, because the fact that you have five reviews in the table giving no less than an 8/10 score plus reviews providing good comments within the prose justifies the claim. Perhaps we get a WP:THIRDOPINION? CR4ZE (t) 07:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Verdict
editAs usual, User:Czar demonstrates great diligence in his engagement with the review. With all my concerns with the article addressed or at least discussed, I happily award the article a ✓ Pass.CR4ZE (t) 01:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)