Talk:Rain World/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The lead strikes me as a little short for an article of this length.
 * I also thought the lede was short for the length prior to the nom, but upon looking at it, I didn't find anything that needed to be added. Do you think it's missing something in particular? Otherwise I think it's an adequate summary.


 * "the player, like the rat," Player or player character?
 * The player—it's referring to the gameplay experience


 * "and don't have preset placemen" Avoid contractions, and hasn't this already been established?
 * "The developers said that players would learn to prefer stealth over combat within several hours of play, as long as the player isn't found." Contraction, and I'm not sure I understand what "the player isn't found" means
 * "his development partner, James Primate" ... "James Therrien (Primate) wrote" Confused; am I missing something?
 * James Primate is the adopted name of James Therrien, but this isn't explicitly connected in any source... (Sources refer to either James Therrien or James Primate as a co-designer.) I added one such citation that shows "Therrien" as a co-designer, though I think it veers too far into original research. Alternatively, I could not mention it at all? But that seems even less appropriate


 * "The background audio is composed of eight to twelve tracks, which activate depending on the in-game context. Rain World has over 3.5 hours of music across 160 tracks." I don't follow
 * "IGN wrote that", "Rock, Paper, Shotgun called", "according to GameSpot", "IGN argued,", "IGN described Slugcat's", "GameSpot wrote" Personification; why not use the name of the reviewer?
 * This has been a development through the past several FACs—there isn't a conceptual issue with using the magazine as a metonym, especially if the focus is on making important points that the reader can understand and hold rather than having them juggle 12 unimportant names (unimportant at least for the section's purposes)


 * "as errors not caused by lack of skill" Are you missing a word or two here?
 * No? But rephrased


 * "But as Rain World's purpose is to disempower the player, PC Gamer's reviewer, with time, began to see its cumbersome controls as less "bad design" than "thematically appropriate"." This sounds slightly non-neutral
 * Rephrased, though I think it was among the main points of that review


 * "according to GameSpot's reviewer, who praised moments" Presumably he's not so much praising the moments as reflecting upon them fondly? (There'll be a better way to put this... Do you see my thought?)
 * "They considered mysterious moments" It's not clear who the "They" refers to, here.
 * "Rock, Paper, Shotgun compared its aesthetic as closer to Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee than Limbo," Personification again, but I'm not convinced this quite works; can you compare A as closer to B than C? I'm not sure.
 * "In the spirit of games like BioShock and Abzu, the reviewer was too attracted to the artistic detail to contemplate the credulity of the man-made environment." This doesn't quite work; as written, this claims that the reviewer was "in the spirit of games like BioShock and Abzu".
 * Quotes should always be cited, even in the lead.
 * Those were quotes to indicate a phrase, not a direct quote that would need attribution—rephrased anyway

The sources all look appropriate and images seem fine. I suppose I should wait for the OTRS ticket to be confirmed (I lost my access...) I will note that I'm always thrilled to see freely released images/videos like this! Ok, that's enough for now; please double-check my copyedits. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the review! I think I got everything, if you'll take a look. I also have plenty more video/animations from game devs on Commons, if you're interested czar  17:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * czar 14:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, and sorry for the delay. I'll find time, I promise! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I've been so long.
 * I wonder if a few more details about the development could appear in the lead? I think, as well, an indication of the story (the family element) and the way that players are left on their own (minus the worm) would be nice additions.
 * What is a "streamer test"?
 * I have been thinking about how to place the images... Perhaps one of them could be moved into the infobox with the "cover" image, one could be moved to the development section (perhaps aligned to the left) to illustrate the "rat in Manhattan" idea and one could move to the reception to illustrate graphical fluidity? I think the block of right-aligned images jostling with the infobox is perhaps not the best way to show off the images.
 * "He drew repeated elements, such as plants and chains, using brushed filters on parts of the map." I'm not sure I understand what this means.
 * "storytelling load where Rain World lacked language" Is where the right word here?
 * I will note my continued worry about the personification of publications, but I'm not going to push it for GAC purposes.
 * "as "thematically appropriate" towards the game's intent to disempower the player" Can something be thematically appropriate towards something? You could say ""thematically appropriate, given the game's".

Sorry again for the delay- I'll aim to be back to take a closer look at the sources soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't have an image that I'd use to illustrate the "rat in Manhattan", though I think these three are fine examples of the animation style/fluidity. The float-right stack doesn't bother me because it displays well in the browser for varied resolutions where it might become overillustrated if broken into three separate captions. Alternatively, I could drop the second of the three animations but I'd rather not. Some of the language differences (especially with prepositions) might be regional—if there's an agnostic way to put it (or, of course, if I makes no sense) then I'm fine with rephrasing. I try to do what's best for the reader. I believe I've addressed your other points too. Appreciate the review czar  03:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry this review has taken so long; I am finding I have less and less time for Wikipedia.
 * "The developers said that players would learn to prefer stealth over combat within several hours of play, as long as the Slugcat can remain undetected." I was struggling to parse this sentence, so I checked the source. I assume this is what you're paraphrasing: "“Enemies can be defeated, but it’s very difficult,” Jakobsson warned. “The idea is that it should take a few hours of playing before you’re able to defeat your first enemy, and then you should need to utilize stealth and wit rather than just quick reflexes. Until then, stay hidden, and if that fails, run.” I'm not sure you've quite captured the point of Jacobsson's comments.
 * "The soundtrack also bore some of the storytelling load where Rain World lacked language." I'm still struggling with this. How about something like "Given the limited explicit description in Rain World, the soundtrack also bore some of the storytelling load."

And my source checking was otherwise fine. I'll be happy to promote once these two small issues have been looked into. I do disagree with a few of the stylistic options (as explored above), but I appreciate that it is not the place of a GA reviewer to force changes of that sort! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , ah, sorry to hear that, but naturally, you'll make time for the most important things. Addressed the above czar  16:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking good; promoting now. Thanks again for your patience. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)