Talk:AM2R/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cognissonance (talk · contribs) 18:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Wanna review a smaller article now. Await the review soon. Cognissonance (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead

 * "The controls were changed to be more rigid, to be more in line with" — Improve flow: "The controls were changed to be more rigid, in line with".


 * "Video game journalists liked the game" — Replace "liked" with "appreciated" for a less informal reading.


 * Mention the criticism.
 * ✅ The reason I didn't do this was that only a single source I found criticized the game, but I guess it makes sense to note that not everyone thought the game was flawless.

Infobox

 * "for the game" is implied, and not necessary.

Content

 * "The game's controls are more rigid than the original's" — Improve prose: "The game's controls are more rigid than those of the original".


 * "The Metroids the player fight" — Fix grammar: "The Metroids the player fights".
 * ✅ Oh man, I think I confused myself with the mix of the plural Metroids and singular player


 * "having new techniques used in battle" — Minimize repetition: "including new techniques used in battle".

Development and release

 * "with modern gameplay, with an in-game minimap rather than with a physical map on one's lap, and with" — Remove the two last uses of "with".


 * trial-and-error — Link to Trial and error


 * game engine — Link to Game engine


 * sprites — Link to Sprite (computer graphics)


 * "new enemies and areas not appearing in other Metroid games" — Improve prose: "new enemies and areas unrelated to other Metroid games".


 * "While the games' first areas" — Fix punctuation: "While the game's first areas".


 * "later areas were expanded and introduced new elements, and featured" — Replace "and featured" with "featuring" to minimize repetition of the word "and".


 * "This, along with progressively darker" — Minimize repetition of the word "progressively": "This, along with increasingly darker".


 * "as everyone was just working" — Remove "just" for a more straightforward and formal reading.


 * "new builds easier to make, making the development progress as a whole go faster" — Improve prose and minimize repetition: "new builds easier to make, leaving the development progress in a more expedient and productive state".


 * "to give it more personality" — Correction: "which was said to give it more personality".
 * ✅, sort of - the point of this sentence is that Guasti intended to give it more personality.


 * "Guasti has said that he still plans" and "development has ended" need to use the past tense.


 * "He did however release the game's" — Remove "game's" to minimize repetition.

Reception

 * The section needs to use more varied language, like "endorsed", "praised", "lauded" and "commended" as well as the examples "[author] of [publication]", "Writing for [publication], [author] considered" and "[publication]'s [author]" instead of repeating "[author] at [publication]". The section could also do well with using the past tense.
 * Tried my best, but unsure if it's good enough. If not, further feedback would be appreciated.


 * "Several journalists have enjoyed the game:" — The section works better as a simple compilation of reviews, without a prefix.


 * Is it "win conditions" or "wind conditions"? Also, is this the only criticism made about the game?
 * It's win conditions, as in the conditions the player needs to meet in order to win. I don't know if this is too jargony or otherwise unclear. And yes, I believe so - since this wasn't a commercial release, but an unusually high quality fan production, I guess journalists' main reaction was of pleasant surprise. Everyone just seems to think it's cool that Guasti put a lot of effort into it without getting paid.

Overall

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall: Were it not for the noticeable shortcomings in prose, I would've given this an immediate pass. Love this little thing.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Cognissonance (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough and helpful review! It's great to go through a review of one's work and think "yes, I agree with everything here and can't believe I didn't notice these flaws before". I have done my best in addressing the points you raised, and hope everything is good enough - if not, I'd be grateful for further feedback.--IDVtalk 22:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Great work on the article. Finally something to review where the references aren't a total mess. Cognissonance (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--IDVtalk 23:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough and helpful review! It's great to go through a review of one's work and think "yes, I agree with everything here and can't believe I didn't notice these flaws before". I have done my best in addressing the points you raised, and hope everything is good enough - if not, I'd be grateful for further feedback.--IDVtalk 22:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Great work on the article. Finally something to review where the references aren't a total mess. Cognissonance (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--IDVtalk 23:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)