Talk:Ether One/GA3

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

Reviewer: Cognissonance (talk · contribs) 22:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll get to this as soon as possible. Cognissonance (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox
There are no sources confirming the rest of the release dates and, moreover, nothing in the body to do it either.

Lead

 * "first-person" is consolidated in the adventure game link. I suggest to omit "first-person" in the lead, mention it in the second paragraph, or simply save it for the gameplay section.
 * White Paper Games also published it.
 * The game was the studio's debut product and was For the sake of flow, remove the second "was".

Gameplay

 * It should be mentioned (with a source) that it is an adventure game.
 * Ref. 2 (PlayStation Blog) is dead.
 * "never sure" of This should be amended to something like "not indicated to".

Plot

 * The player assumes the role of a "Restorer" This was already mentioned in Gameplay. Work the information about what the Restorer does and the company they work for into the other sentence.
 * will either make or break Informal saying, should be copy edited to "may decide".
 * of dozens of its citizens "of its citizens" is already implied with the use of "dozens".
 * They must destroy the stones First only referred to as a singular stone, this sentence should become "They must destroy several of these stones".
 * more and more Only one "more" is needed.
 * It is also revealed Repeats the preceding "revealed". Perhaps replace with "made known".
 * trying to cure himself of his own Repeats the preceding "his own". I suggest to simply omit it.

Development

 * There is no source here confirming the claim that it is their first game or that it took three years to make.
 * Sound composer Nathaniel- Jorden Apostol composed the soundtrack for the game Terrible line. Remove "sound composer" and "for the game" and correct the naming.
 * Ref. 12 (DualShockers) is an unreliable source.
 * Ref. 13 (PC Gamer) is dead.

Overall
Other than what I have already mentioned, the plot and development sections are rife with badly written prose, like cases of WP:POV and "This person stated that". It's clear to me that it requires a rewrite and deep copy edit to satisfy the good article criteria. Until then, I'm not comfortable passing it. Cognissonance (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)