Talk:Escape Velocity Nova/GA1

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 17:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

In progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Overall a solid article, if short, but I understand that Mac shareware games are sadly not a huge wealth of information. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead could use a line explaining the general premise of the game.
 * Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9. Didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or failed verification.
 * File:Escape Velocity Nova Gameplay.jpg could use with some beefing up of its fair use rationale to explain better why it's necessary to include.
 * The main weakness of the article is coverage. The reception section is rather lacking, both in reviews and substantial content from those reviews.
 * I found a few additional reviews of the game in MacNN, MacObserver, and GeekInsider (not entirely sure about the reliability of the latter, but might be worth hitting up WP:VG/S about it:)
 * In terms of old Mac mags there's MacAddict and MacHome (June 2002, although I can't find an online copy in a cursory search.)
 * There's a solid passage detailing how the original plugin for Nova was developed in The Secret History of Mac Gaming that could be used to beef up the development section.


 * Absolutely, the coverage has been the Achilles heel, and it has been extremely difficult to find. Honestly, I was very on the fence before sending this to GAN as to whether or not I was able to find enough.  I do want to thank you for turning up the MacAddict source; now that I have seen it, I actually recalled reading it myself in 2002 when the magazine came out.  I had been hesitant, though, to include MacNN and MacObserver because I questioned if they were indeed reliable sources or not - I'll defer to your judgment if you have one about any of them.  I haven't spotted the MacHome issue yet, either; I'll keep my eye out.  Otherwise, I have addressed the issues so far, as well as incorporated info into the development section as recommended.  Let me know what you think on the sourcing - I've added MacAddict and MacNN for now, and I'm not sure what to make of MacObserver.   Red Phoenix  talk  23:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think MacObserver works; it's been around for more than 20 decades, it's got an editorial staff, and it's got a number of bigger Mac journalists who have contributed. I dunno if it'd meet any higher threshold akin to FA standards, but especially since it's being used for opinion in a review I don't see an issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 00:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got a little more confidence in it now; the author of the article you shared is the same author as the MacAddict article. I've added it.   Red Phoenix  talk  00:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the reception section could still use a bit more work. Right now, it's just reading a list of what different critics though, rather than synthesizing them into a more useful and broad summary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I buffed this up a bit more. Past reception in video games I've done, I've received mixed messages during reviews on "synthesizing" and whether that's OR or not, but I think I've got it pretty ironed out where it's not like we need a cited source to say the sky is blue.  I'll let you have another look.   Red Phoenix  talk  01:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, it looks a little better. I probably shouldn't have used the word "synthesis" since that ties into original research on WP, but what I mean is you want to summarize critical opinion where possible versus just layering individual opinions one after another. I will take another look at the article today or tomorrow and either pass or come back with anything else. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 13:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)