Talk:A Monster's Expedition/GA1

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

Reviewer: Rhain (talk · contribs) 00:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one! I've had this game downloaded for a while, so maybe this will prompt me to play it properly. Expect some comments shortly. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 00:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

 * In the infobox, ensure the commas aren't in bold—e.g., iOS, macOS, Win → iOS, macOS, Win
 * Is there a more specific release date than "November 2020" for Linux? I think 20 November is accurate per ref 15
 * I think Nov 20 is right, but I don't think ref 15 specifically says it. Is dev twitter citable for this?
 * The ref suggests that it was Nov 20, but you're right, probably not explicit enough. For something like a release date, I'd say Twitter is suitable! ☔
 * In the lead, PlayStation 4, and PlayStation 5 → PlayStation 4, and PlayStation 5
 * received both positive and negative feedback → received mixed feedback or polarized critics
 * the game felt aimless or that the difficulty felt arbitrary → the game felt aimless or the difficulty arbitrary
 * received both positive and negative feedback → received mixed feedback or polarized critics
 * the game felt aimless or that the difficulty felt arbitrary → the game felt aimless or the difficulty arbitrary
 * the game felt aimless or that the difficulty felt arbitrary → the game felt aimless or the difficulty arbitrary
 * the game felt aimless or that the difficulty felt arbitrary → the game felt aimless or the difficulty arbitrary

Gameplay

 * players explore → the player explores, for consistency
 * Rolling logs continue rolling until blocked by an obstacle or rolling into the water.—consider rephrasing this to maintain tense (e.g., Rolling logs continue to roll until they roll into the water or are blocked by an obstacle.)
 * ✅, I removed one of the instances of "roll" so the sentence doesn't have three "roll"s, I hope it's still clear.
 * Logs rolled into the water can create bridges, and later rafts,—I assume this means rafts are unlocked later in the game; up to you, but consider rephrasing to make this either more or less obvious:
 * Logs rolled into the water can create bridges and rafts
 * Logs rolled into the water can create bridges—and, later in the game, rafts—
 * The game incorporates elements of open world games → The game incorporates open world elements
 * lacks penalties for failure or overt guidance for the player on where to go—this phrasing suggests there are no penalties for player guidance, which I assume is not the intention
 * Reading this again, I'm not actually sure "no penalties" fits here, it's probably more to do with the undo/reset functionality based on the sourcing. I dropped that part and expanded on the "no guidance" part.
 * Good call. ☔
 * allowing players → allowing the player
 * Link player character
 * On the topic of this sentence, I find my wording The monster from A Good Snowman Is Hard To Build returns as the player character, who is exploring the islands which comprise a museum of human civilization for outsiders to be a mess of relative pronouns. Do you have any suggestions?
 * I had somewhat similar concerns on my first pass, but couldn't think of an alternative. Perhaps you could consider splitting the sentence (one focusing on the monster, the other on the islands)? ☔
 * ✅, I removed the parts I felt were redundant to the next sentence anyways.
 * Link player character
 * On the topic of this sentence, I find my wording The monster from A Good Snowman Is Hard To Build returns as the player character, who is exploring the islands which comprise a museum of human civilization for outsiders to be a mess of relative pronouns. Do you have any suggestions?
 * I had somewhat similar concerns on my first pass, but couldn't think of an alternative. Perhaps you could consider splitting the sentence (one focusing on the monster, the other on the islands)? ☔
 * ✅, I removed the parts I felt were redundant to the next sentence anyways.
 * ✅, I removed the parts I felt were redundant to the next sentence anyways.

Development

 * Consider unlinking A Good Snowman Is Hard to Build and open world per MOS:DL (though not required)
 * I unlinked open world, but kept A Good Snowman Is Hard to Build per personal preference, because one of the two previous titles being unlinked makes it look like that one doesn't have an article. I hope you don't mind.
 * I prefer no duplicate links, but that seems logical to me (and is allowed per MOS:DL)! ☔
 * A Good Snowman Is Hard To Build and Cosmic Express → A Good Snowman Is Hard to Build (2015) and Cosmic Express (2017)
 * Alan Hazelden was the...—consider rephrasing this sentence to avoid repetition. Some options:
 * The development team consisted of creative director and lead puzzle designer Alan Hazelden, art director Adam deGrandis, lead programmer Benjamin Davis, composer Eli Rainsberry, narrative designer Philippa Warr, and producer Syrenne McNulty
 * Alan Hazelden was the creative director and lead puzzle designer, Adam deGrandis the art director, Benjamin Davis the lead programmer, Eli Rainsberry the composer, Philippa Warr the narrative designer, and Syrenne McNulty the producer
 * Rainsberry was also the sound artist, per the source
 * but the final game → and the final game
 * island-based structure of the world → world's island-based structure
 * was in the game since early in its development → was present early in development
 * I used was present from early in development; I think this makes it clearer that it was added early in development and was also in the released game.
 * Good call! ☔
 * The team felt this effort...—this sentence uses the word "game" thrice; consider rephrasing
 * they created a dynamic sound → the team created a dynamic sound
 * the game's score → the score
 * the game's art and text → the art and text
 * Good call! ☔
 * The team felt this effort...—this sentence uses the word "game" thrice; consider rephrasing
 * they created a dynamic sound → the team created a dynamic sound
 * the game's score → the score
 * the game's art and text → the art and text
 * the game's score → the score
 * the game's art and text → the art and text
 * the game's art and text → the art and text

Release

 * ported—pipe link Video game port
 * Consider combining these two paragraphs and merging them to the previous section (which can be renamed Development and release)
 * Consider combining these two paragraphs and merging them to the previous section (which can be renamed Development and release)

Reception

 * Consider using Abbr in the table to clarify NS
 * This section is inconsistent with its naming of critics—e.g., PC Gamer's Phil Savage but only Push Square instead of Push Square's Stephen Tailby
 * I don't really know what to do here. Personally I don't love naming critics (I think it's wordy and redundant to the reference), but there are two reasons I felt it was necessary: I'm actually citing two different PC Gamer reviewers, and felt the need to distinguish them: Jonathan Bolding and Phil Savage, and in the "accolades" section, the Fahey and Savage lists were specifically listed as personal bests, not the opinion of the publication as a whole. Should I just name everyone to be consistent?
 * Personally I would name everyone, but I understand your reasoning, and only naming PC Gamer's reviewers seems logical now that you've explained it. I'll leave this to you—no worries either way. ☔
 * . I named everyone, I'm just not sure what the convention is on re-referencing someone later in the section. I went with just their name, but I'm not sure whether to re-reference by name, publication, or name+publication.
 * Looks good! Personally, I go with name+publication (e.g., Eurogamer's Tapsell) but I can see how that might look wordy so it's your call. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 01:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * First paragraph:
 * A Monster's Expedition released to positive reviews, especially on Nintendo Switch, where it received "universal acclaim" from critics → A Monster's Expedition received "universal acclaim" on Nintendo Switch
 * recommended the game on OpenCritic → recommended the game according to OpenCritic
 * Second paragraph:
 * called out → highlighted
 * criticized the game only having one or two ways to complete any given puzzle → criticized the limited solutions to puzzles
 * I prefer your wording for this phrase but I don't like what it does to the rest of the sentence. Thoughts on the current Vandal criticized the limited solutions to puzzles despite the game's presentation as open world?
 * Good call—looks good to me! ☔
 * Third paragraph:
 * The progression of the game drew both positive and negative commentary from reviews → something like The game's progression drew mixed responses or The game's progression polarized reviewers
 * Not sure the second sentence's quote is entirely necessary—consider rephrasing
 * E.g., Edge found the introduction of mechanics subtle, teaching the player...
 * Third sentence could be trimmed
 * E.g., PC Gamers Phil Savage felt A Monster's Expeditions biggest strength was making players feel they had discovered mechanics themselves.
 * Others found that the nonlinearity of the game's puzzles was a major strength → Others found the puzzles' nonlinearity a major strength
 * US Gamer → USgamer
 * multiple critics, including US Gamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, and Pocket Gamer, cited → multiple critics cited
 * On the other hand → Conversely
 * Unlink Push Square per MOS:DUPLINK
 * got no more interesting reads a little awkwardly—consider rephrasing
 * What do you think of and Vandal felt that the game did not progress in difficulty, but only became more overwhelming
 * Great! Far better than what I could come up with. ☔
 * Fourth paragraph:
 * The game's Nintendo Switch edition was specifically praised by several reviewers → Reviewers praised the Nintendo Switch version
 * the laid-back nature of the game → the game's laid-back nature
 * praising the Switch port's touch controls → praising the touch controls
 * cited the game's "bite-sized" → cited the "bite-sized"
 * Fifth paragraph:
 * overall atmosphere of the game → game's overall atmosphere
 * Eurogamer said the game as...—this sentence could be trimmed
 * E.g., Eurogamer found the game charming in its audiovisual design and mechanics, owing to a perceived lack of tension and an appeal to curiosity
 * the feeling of the game which → the feeling which
 * found that while simple → found that, while simple
 * The game's writing style...—consider rephrasing this sentence to focus solely on Pocket Gamer's praise (e.g., Pocket Gamer found the writing style "hilarious")
 * Awards and accolades
 * I think either "Awards" or "Accolades" would be a better section header, but I'll leave this to you
 * Unlink PC Gamer per MOS:DUPLINK
 * The first paragraph is a bit repetitious and could be trimmed a bit
 * E.g., consider Some reviewers listed the game among the best of 2020, including Kotakus Mike Fahey and The New Yorkers Simon Parkin
 * ✅, and it was so short after I combined the two.
 * Consider removing the quotation marks from the award names (e.g., "Excellence in Design" and "Excellence in Audio") for consistency
 * cited the game's "bite-sized" → cited the "bite-sized"
 * Fifth paragraph:
 * overall atmosphere of the game → game's overall atmosphere
 * Eurogamer said the game as...—this sentence could be trimmed
 * E.g., Eurogamer found the game charming in its audiovisual design and mechanics, owing to a perceived lack of tension and an appeal to curiosity
 * the feeling of the game which → the feeling which
 * found that while simple → found that, while simple
 * The game's writing style...—consider rephrasing this sentence to focus solely on Pocket Gamer's praise (e.g., Pocket Gamer found the writing style "hilarious")
 * Awards and accolades
 * I think either "Awards" or "Accolades" would be a better section header, but I'll leave this to you
 * Unlink PC Gamer per MOS:DUPLINK
 * The first paragraph is a bit repetitious and could be trimmed a bit
 * E.g., consider Some reviewers listed the game among the best of 2020, including Kotakus Mike Fahey and The New Yorkers Simon Parkin
 * ✅, and it was so short after I combined the two.
 * Consider removing the quotation marks from the award names (e.g., "Excellence in Design" and "Excellence in Audio") for consistency
 * I think either "Awards" or "Accolades" would be a better section header, but I'll leave this to you
 * Unlink PC Gamer per MOS:DUPLINK
 * The first paragraph is a bit repetitious and could be trimmed a bit
 * E.g., consider Some reviewers listed the game among the best of 2020, including Kotakus Mike Fahey and The New Yorkers Simon Parkin
 * ✅, and it was so short after I combined the two.
 * Consider removing the quotation marks from the award names (e.g., "Excellence in Design" and "Excellence in Audio") for consistency
 * ✅, and it was so short after I combined the two.
 * Consider removing the quotation marks from the award names (e.g., "Excellence in Design" and "Excellence in Audio") for consistency

References and images

 * From this revision
 * Ref 13: US Gamer → USgamer
 * Ref 13: gamingonlinux.com → GamingOnLinux
 * Refs 21 and 22: add accessdates per WP:CITEWEB
 * Consider archiving all references to avoid link rot
 * ✅ IABot is being uncooperative, I'll do this later.
 * This is possibly outside of scope for GAN, but titles of works should be italicised in references per MOS:CONFORMTITLE
 * I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. Which ones are not italicised?
 * Sorry, I should have been clearer. The titles of works within reference titles should be italicised—e.g., ref 1 should be A Monster's Expedition review – 'A new type of museum exploration'—but, again, this might be outside the scope of GAN so I'll leave it up to you. ☔
 * File:A Monster's Expedition cover.png and File:A Monster's Expedition gameplay.jpg have sufficient non-free use rationales and both are used appropriately here
 * I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. Which ones are not italicised?
 * Sorry, I should have been clearer. The titles of works within reference titles should be italicised—e.g., ref 1 should be A Monster's Expedition review – 'A new type of museum exploration'—but, again, this might be outside the scope of GAN so I'll leave it up to you. ☔
 * File:A Monster's Expedition cover.png and File:A Monster's Expedition gameplay.jpg have sufficient non-free use rationales and both are used appropriately here
 * File:A Monster's Expedition cover.png and File:A Monster's Expedition gameplay.jpg have sufficient non-free use rationales and both are used appropriately here

Result
That's all for now! Thanks for an interesting read—I'll definitely have to check out the game again. A lot of my comments are nitpicky so feel free to disagree or ask for clarification, and anything written like this is purely a personal suggestion. I'll likely do another pass once my comments are addressed—until then, putting this on hold. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 03:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the article is ready for another pass. I've tried to use ✅ when implementing suggestions verbatim, when implementing but flagging for another look, and  for open questions. Thanks! ~  A412  talk! 19:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing my comments so quickly and responding so neatly! I've answered some of your questions above and will take another proper pass shortly (though I doubt there's much left at this point!). – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 05:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * . Everything should be resolved now (one question on re-referencing by name nonwithstanding). ~ A412  talk! 14:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I responded above, but won't let it hold up the review. Upon taking another look, I don't see any outstanding problems! I'll do a minor copyedit on my way out, but this is all yours: . Congratulations! – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 01:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)