Talk:Aether (video game)/GA1

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

At this point, the article needs quite a bit of work before it is ready for GA status.


 * 1) I read through the article, but I have no idea what actually happens in the game. What sort of puzzles are these? How many per planet? How many planets? The article is definitely not comprehensive at this point.
 * 2) *Done now, though if more is needed please specify.
 * 3) What is meant by the planet changing color? Does it change away from the pastel color, or does it change from black and white to pastel?
 * 4) *Attempted to rectify.
 * 5) Is there sound involved? If so, is it a soundtrack? What sort of music?
 * 6) *Believe this is now covered.
 * 7) Is the game targeted at children?
 * 8) *Doubtful, McMillen has been involved in creating a game which involves shooting at anthropomorphised female genitalia with a 'ship' which is a flying phallus. His latest game involves guiding a cube of raw meat around levels full of buzzsaws etc., making splatting noises and bleeding where it lands. There's nothing violent or sexualized about this particular game but I think it's just aimed at indie game fans rather than a childrens' title.
 * 9) Has the game been reviewed by any magazines or respected names in video games? Many of the sources are from blog-style sites. Perhaps, if no magazines have covered it, it might be wise to wait until a little longer after the release to push for GA.
 * 10) *When you consider it took two guys 14 days to put together and takes @ 25 minutes to complete, the chance of a magazine actually giving it more than a passing mention is negligible, the chance of that particular magazine being picked up by me is even more so. Magazines have (finally) given more coverage to below-the-radar areas of gaming like the indie scene, non-AAA massively multiplayer games etc. But, that's focused around niche markets like old skool RPGs, turn-based strategy, 2D platformers and shooters etc. Stuff which the mainstream does not cater to. They're not going to devote any kind of wordage to such a small project. Despite appearances, Rock Paper Shotgun consists of the posts of 4 experienced games journalists (published in magazine journalists, not amateur hacks). Jay Is Games (see the talk page for sources about it) is respected and the reviewer here is one of the handful of regulars who post articles under the scrutiny of lead reviewer John Bardinelli and site manager Jay Bibby. Two more sources added include Wired (respected) and Play This Thing, the piece in question is written by the guy quoted in Edge magazine (magazines don't come more highly respected than Edge). In a nutshell, the ideal of magazine coverage is always highly unlikely for indie games, and the presence of sites like Jay Is Games actively discourages magazines and other websites from giving too much coverage beacuse it's already done.
 * 11) The article needs a serious copyedit from someone who hasn't worked on it yet. I would recommend someone from WikiProject Video games. The quality of prose is not GA level. One of the biggest problems is the frequency of sentences joined together with commas.
 * 12) *Two comrades from the VG project have proof-read, made corrections and suggestions, which I believe they have been dealt with. Between the four of us the article has improved considerably IMO. Someoneanother 14:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) The image needs to be moved to comply with Wikipedia guidelines (not left-aligned under a level 2 header).
 * 14) *Shifted to right-alignment. Someoneanother 16:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I will place this nomination on hold to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time, I have taken an overly distal view of gameplay and hope to rectify that by implementing your suggestions. Someoneanother 16:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Plot and Walkthrough" section goes into far too much detail, and it is written in a very unencyclopedic tone. "You" should not be used, and the capitilized words are distracting. A brief summary of the section would be fine, but the summary should be added to the "Gameplay" section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've incorporated the text and referenced it. Still waiting for a response to the request for a copy-edit, if you can highlight anything in particular which is letting the text down I'll have a go. Someoneanother 21:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some concerns regarding the prose: joining sentences with commas (eg. "The player encounters characters who can be helped if a puzzle is solved, each planet except Earth has its own puzzle."), awkward prose (eg. the run-on sentence "The monster's tongue is used to propel them both through space and onto other planets, it must first be latched onto a cloud floating above the planet's surface, swinging around and latching onto the next cloud, until reaching space and repeating the process with stars and asteroids, before locating a different planet to explore."), grammar issues (eg. "has shrank" instead of "has shrunk"). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Grammar problems I'm not so hot on. I have corrected the above, tweaked some more overly long sentences and added a little more info in reception. In terms of information the article is a heck of a lot better than when I nominated it, thanks to the anon's intervention. We can either wait for a copy-editor to appear or if there's anything else grammar-wise that's not right I'd be happy to alter it. Really do appreciate your time, you've been very busy on GANs. Someoneanother 22:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has come a long way, and I'm impressed at the work that has been put into it. There are a couple of hidden notes left in the article that give suggestions. If those can be dealt with (or if you can check to see if they've already been dealt with), I'll give the article another look and see if it's ready to be passed. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed those two amongst all the tags, believe they're now rectified. Someoneanother 00:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest &mdash; when I began the review, I didn't see this article passing. You've done a great job of expanding it and responding to my (often picky) concerns. I can now read through the article and get a good sense of what the game is like. I believe that the article now meets all six GA criteria, so I am promoting it. Congratulations!
 * If you have a chance, it would be great if you could review an article in return to help reduce the backlog at WP:GAN. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done! :) Giggy (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the review would not be complete without thanking the editors who helped with copyediting and pointing out their concerns. You also played a huge role in getting this promoted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sincerest thanks for the amount of time you've put into this GAN GaryColemanFan, likewise Giggy and David Fuchs have been very generous and I'm grateful. Someoneanother 11:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)