Talk:Obsidian (1986 video game)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Notes:
 * The lead is a great summary of the article. The info that was previously at DYK is also interesting.
 * "The game received a postitive response from journalists, it was praised for the quality of its graphics, reviewers held mixed views on the game's ability to maintain player interest." might be better as two sentences.
 * The "Gameplay" section seems a little choppy. Consider tweaking the writing.
 * "a space station nestled within the centre of an asteroid" does not need to be repeated in the second section when i is already in the lead and first section.
 * The "Plot" section leaves the reader wanting a bit more. Do the sources say anything more on this? Maybe info on an ending, level progression, and so on if they are applicable.
 * The "Development" section also seems short. The info in their is interesting but if anything can be added discussing new techniques, hardware, limitations, or anything else then it should be mentioned. The graphics were praised so is there any more detail on their creation? Much like above, only a line or two would be needed to fulfill GA criteria.
 * The refs seem fine.
 * Not very many which leads me to believe there might have been some over reliance on so few. This can be seen in the article covering important aspects but not going into great depth on certain aspects.
 * The date formatting does not appear standardized with a mixture of ISO when full dates and spelt out when not.
 * Ran a script on the dashes.
 * Noticed "centre" just because I am American. Nothing else jumped out so I assume it is all in British English but double check to make sure nothing was missed. Other MoS stuff looks great.
 * I believe it is underlinked. This would not prevent promotion to GA but consider building the web more if it is possible to do so without overlinking.
 * I considered failing this due to the image. I think it makes the article better and can easily pass as an option for identifying the subject as well as critical commentary (note that marketing would be another section you could add). I reversed my original position finally since it is an ad from the publisher of the game in their magazine.


 * Pass/Fail

Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
 * On the fence since the first section after the lead seems a little choppy sentence structure wise. This could just be my personal opinion. Take a look since it is close if not there. Leaning towards "pass".
 * Pass. Note that the "fiction" criteria was handled well.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
 * Pass

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
 * Pass

(c) it contains no original research.
 * Pass

Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * More is probably needed. Is anything else available in the sources?

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Pass. More detail is actually needed.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Pass. I like the contrary reviews.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4] Illustrated, if possible, by images:[ (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * Pass. See the notes section above.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Cptnono (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass
 * Thank you for your time, I'm currently up to my neck in work but will try to work on your suggestions ASAP. Someoneanother 22:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm almost done with the things I can fix, some explanations are in order so:


 * Regarding the plot: this game is from an era where the player is given a premise in the game's inlay or manual, and where cover art often bore little resemblence to the game it represented. Games such as these typically lack 'beginning - middle - end' plots, dialogue or textual reference to the game's plot, the text printed on the game's inlay will be disconnected from the game itself. I haven't played the game, probably never will, but on completion the most I would expect is a message along the lines of "well done, game over", which bears no resemblence to the kind of plot details you would expect in more modern games. So, I understand the point completely about how it feels there should be info on the endgame etc., but more than likely there simply isn't any, you either complete the game or don't.
 * Sources: when the game was up for AFD I scoured the net and managed to get hold of every magazine source I found mention of, they're present in the article and I squeezed as much pertinent info out of them as I could. Although it's possible that the game was reviewed in a multi-format magazine or two, like Computer and Video Games, there is no guarantee, I don't have access to them and the sources in the article may be the only ones which exist. It being an Amstrad-only game has severely limited the sources available.
 * Woah, hold on a sec, I was aware of a site with a few issues of Computer and Video Games for download, and as sod's law would have it the very last one I downloaded from the time period has a review. It won't help with development but it does contain some specific details which I can use. It'll have to be tomorrow when I use it, I need some sleep, please allow me some time to integrate the source, it should improve things. Someoneanother 02:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Development: the information came from an interview with the creator, it is unlikely that further details exist outside of his head. 'Making of' featurettes in magazines were not typical at the time, and the game is obscure so it is not particularly likely to appear as a 'making of' feature in Retro Gamer any time soon.
 * The image is the best I can do, unfortunately, again this is an issue which arises due to it being an Amstrad game, online databases etc. for the computer are limited. If it were released on the ZX Spectrum, Amiga or Commodore 64 I'd probably be able to get a cover image in a heartbeat.
 * Marketing: same as above, such details did not typically get printed, there were so many games being released that magazines didn't need to zone-in on standard games.
 * Under linking is something I'd like to deal with, but I'm pretty stumped because there's no list of sci-fi video games, for instance. It's linked from Warriner's own article and on the Amstrad games list, outside of that I'm struggling to see where else it could be listed.

Thanks, I'm going to try and finish tweaking the article. Someoneanother 01:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've used the new source and the plot and gameplay have been tightened up a little, the reception has also been expanded. I believe I've addressed your suggestions as best I can. Someoneanother 14:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am passing this. I considered not since we simply may not be able to make a GA with the available sources but I think the info and sources are sufficient. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much :) Someoneanother 08:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)