Talk:I Hate Running Backwards/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 18:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel confident enough with GA standards to take this on. Stand by for further comments, and probably some requests for editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Illustrations
 * It looks like the images might have been released for license, and that another editor has reviewed it. But the link is deprecated. Is it possible to verify the permissions some other way? At a minimum, dive into the internet archive to rescue the url.
 * I added archived links to all three. Although the images were not saved themselves, the licence is still there. A Commons admin reviewed the images and their licenses, which should generally be enough. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Even with a broad license, it's better to integrate the images into the article with captions that relate to the content, to make it more like an encylopedia article and less like a WP:GALLERY.
 * I repurposed the images from the previous version but formatted them as a gallery rather than the clutter it was before. I was never really happy with that and you are right they are mostly cosmetic. I removed the two irrelevant images and maintained the GIF to demonstrate some gameplay. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality
 * I see no issues. There aren't even any controversial statements that would require more references. Good job.

Broadness


 * Looks pretty complete and thorough.
 * Is this a part of a series or spinoff? I see a lot of mentions of serious sam. Maybe a short section about the setting would give it some context. (Or something else that would give you a nice paragraph, be it the IP, the title, or something related.) Or, at a minimum, maybe briefly cover that early on in the "gameplay" section.
 * It is indeed a spin-off. I added a claim to the Gameplay section with an appropriate source. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have some comments on the reception section, if you see below. This could effect the lead too. Shouldn't take much work to improve.

Lead


 * Writing:
 * The flow here is excellent. In earnest, it's the best part of the article, and it's a good standard to reach for as you fix the sections. It's clear, it's organized, and it flows well.
 * References:
 * Not usually an issue in the lead, and no issue here. See below for more specific comments about references.

Gameplay


 * References
 * I did ref checks and this section mostly checks out.
 * I might have missed it, but I didn't see a reference to verify that melee attacks can destroy the environment.
 * Several do, but I used the wrong one where it is mentioned. This should be fixed now. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Use more plain language than "ultimate ability". "Special ability" or "unique ability" would be clearer, and more true to the sources. If that's really the term used in the game, maybe just define the term, with a proper source, since the article uses it several times.
 * The action is called "ultimate" (per the PS Blog source). I amended the language in places and added a separate sentence for the name definition. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's times where you refer to primary sources where secondary sources would suffice (e.g.: the "shoot em down" statement )
 * This should be fixed now. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Back to back references ([1][2][3]) start to clutter the article. There's a lot of cases where one good reference covers everything in the statement. Alternatively, you could breaking the statements up so it's clearer which source is sourced to which statement -- which would have the added benefit of writing shorter statements. My least preferred solution is to bundle citations into a single ref tag, but it's worth considering.
 * There are some cases where two very related statements were covered separately by two sources. These are combined for brevity, and splitting them apart would make the wording very clunky. However, some sources might essentially be duplicates; I will check this tomorrow. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well written
 * The prose here is decent.
 * At first glance, it's a little hard to read. As a good starting point, I'd recommend resequencing the first and second paragraphs. Start with that first sentence, but then jump into the basic implementation of the shoot em up in the second paragraph, and get into the unique characters afterwards. If you can, try to improve the flow while you do it.
 * I was not entirely sure where to put this, but the character selection is usually the first thing that happens within the game. I will see how I can best reorder this tomorrow. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there might be a better word than "although", for flow.
 * This should be fixed now. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * By that token, the multiplayer co-op mode might flow better as part of the "character" paragraph. (With the level/viewpoint/weapon paragraph flowing better from the first sentence about genre.)
 * Ditto like the other reordering task. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I rephrased and restructured as I felt was appropriate. All ref triplets and some twins have been eliminated. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Development


 * References:
 * No issues with verifiability.
 * Again, I'd encourage you to reduce the number of double or triple refs.
 * This is similar to the situation as with Gameplay, though I am certain that all sources used are required where they are in this section. There are no triplets, so I hope this is fine (WP:CITEKILL talks about bundling at 4+ refs). IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well-written
 * There are some longer sentences with lots of commas. You could break these statements up (which would dovetail with the above comment about breaking the references up too.)
 * I split one sentence that felt oddly long. Please look for other sentences that could be problematic. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I think there might be a better word than "although", for flow.
 * This should be fixed now. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This jumps around a fair bit, and it could flow better just by organizing the information better.
 * The first paragraph talks about the team's background, then the prototype of the game.
 * The second paragraph talks about the prototype being repurposed for Croteam, and then further details about publishing.
 * The last paragraph has a blend of the engine, the employees, the Croteam Incubator program, and then the release.
 * With that in mind, it might make sense to break out the last part of the third paragraph (the release part), and combine the last half of paragraph one with the first half of paragraph two to talk about the prototype evolving into the new concept.
 * It might also make sense to throw the third paragraph employee info into the part about the team in the first paragraph.
 * Keep reworking it until it feels more organized.
 * I retooled the section a bit, the three paragraphs are now: Binx Interactive introduction; Binx--Croteam interactions; publishing & release. It's not a perfect timeline (the time jumps back from November 2017 to August 2017 between the latter two paragraphs), but it is probably the best in regards to flow and categorisation. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Reception
 * References:
 * Looks like all the sources check out.
 * I can see where the back-to-back references help you keep this concise, especially where two reviewers are saying basically the same thing. But this section is already fairly short and it couldn't hurt to just pull these apart, adding specificity if it helps the flow.
 * Exactly, some critics are saying the exact same, and I would like to avoid saying "X echoed this" as much as possible. I will check tomorrow how much I can expand this without bloating it. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Writing:
 * Between the first two sentences, just help clear up the timeline by saying the game was released in May.
 * The release date was established in the Development section, which should make it obvious that the GamesRadar+ rating came just before release (since it was exhibited at PAX East). Should I really duplicate the date here? IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Something lost in this section is what the gameplay experience feels like. Jumping right into the nuances of controls and glitches means you kind of bypass that, even if those are relevant. I'd see if there's a journalist who comments on the broader experience, good or bad, just to start readers off with a proper context.
 * I do not recall many sources talking about the feel of the game, but I will definitely check this again tomorrow. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I did some minor expansions and eliminated all ref triplets. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Overall


 * There's still some work to be done, but I think you're on track for a GA with some additional effort. Don't let the constructive criticisms deter you -- this is some solid research and writing and just needs another pass in a few areas. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thorough review. I fixed some of the complaints and will address more when I find the time, likely tomorrow. I left some in-line comments where appropriate. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have performed some more updates and hope to have resolved all complaints. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You've done a lot of good work and the article is much closer now. I think there's maybe a few last tweaks that would take it across the finish line.
 * The gameplay section flows a lot better better. I think things can be a little more clear, and it helps to start with the obvious.
 * Think of the first paragraph as an intro paragraph. Move the part about the levels to the end of the paragraph. Just after you explain that it's a Shoot em up, the next sentence can talk about the vertical scrolling, and the backwards movement of the player. You should state the obvious and tell readers that the player shoots downwards (not just aims).
 * If you're referring to the melee attack, say "this attack can be used again" (instead of "the attack").
 * Consider re-ordering the second paragraph's first and second half: talk about the player's weapons first, then explain the enemies they use them on. This is generally good though.
 * When you say you unlock a shortcut to the "environment thereafter", try plainer language. (e.g.: "next level".)
 * "The character wields two ranged weapons that can be switched between at any time" -- this is a little unclear. Maybe try -- "The character can switch between two different ranged weapons at any time."
 * The development and release section is really excellent and clear now. A few small copy edits:
 * Consider removing the names of the cancelled mobile games -- I don't think we gain anything by knowing their title.
 * "involved tapping the touchscreen to make a car turn 45°, as well as drifting and spinning actions" --> "involved tapping a touchscreen to make a car turn, drift, or spin".
 * Consider removing the in-game quote from Serious Sam, since it's near redundant with the title. It seems clear without it.
 * Consider making the "release" passage into its own paragraph, or even its own section.
 * Seems odd to put the statement about the trailer after the release. Flip these two statements and edit accordingly.
 * The reception section is basically solid.
 * Further to my statement from before, I agree with you that re-stating the release date would be redundant. I do think it helps to give the reader some cues about the sequence of events and timing of the best games list. Maybe start the passage, "A month before release, IHRB was named..."
 * The second paragraph starts to feel a lot like disparate phrases glued together. I'm not sure if there's a way to try to re-organize it for better flow.
 * At the very least, the second paragraph could use some transitions. Words like "Similarly..." or "In contrast..." Even some mini-topic phrases where it just helps give cues to the reader, "Discussing the graphics, ..." "Focusing more on the music, ..."
 * I appreciate your work and hopefully it hasn't been too difficult. It's almost there. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done most of this, though two things:
 * The weapons are each exchangeable with others, not one with the other. I supposed this really was not clear at all so I rephrased the sentence differently.
 * I tried to circumvent the issue in the reception section by splitting it into more paragraphs, so now the order is Introduction; General gameplay; Graphics; Repetitiveness/pace. Maybe you have a better idea but it is difficult with such a limited pool of reliable sources to pull statements from.
 * Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 22:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are really the last couple things -- the weapon exchange sentence, and the flow in the other sections.
 * The meaning of the weapon sentence isn't clear -- it might be just me. Going to the source "two weapons, which you can switch between" sounds more clear, and so does "two weapons ... one triggered by each mouse button" is even more clear. Even if the article copied the sources verbatim, I don't think you'd run afoul of copyright for a short sentence fragment.
 * Add a linebreak before "The game was released for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One on 22 May 2018." -- just to have a clean paragraph about the release.
 * Add a linebreak before "Robert Purchese of Eurogamer described..." to make the first paragraph about the metacritic stuff. (The Eurogamer summary fits fine into the second paragraph.)
 * Purchese enjoyed --> Purchese also enjoyed (for flow / transition)
 * Llamas found --> Llamas similarly found (for flow / transition)
 * Since the Llamas quote is translated, maybe summarize the overall sentiment without direct quotes.
 * The last paragraph starts kinda jarring. Maybe add a topic sentence. E.g.: "Critics also had mixed reviews about the game's pacing."
 * Hope that's not too pedantic. Once these feel right we can wrap this up. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , all done. I changed the weapons sentence somewhat. In the game, you have two weapons wielded simultaneously. You can change one at the press of a button and the other by collecting crates. None of the sources goes into this detail so I just omitted the exchange part. Using "mouse buttons" here is also inaccurate since the game released on three platforms that have no such buttons. The new sentence reads "The character wields two ranged weapons that are fired individually.", which should leave little room for ambiguity. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience and hard work. Passed. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience and hard work. Passed. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)