Talk:Resogun/GA1

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

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 05:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll be offline and on the road over the next week. I'll review this then. czar ♔   05:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Decent, but has substantial clarity and broadness issues to overcome. Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * though, notably, two gameplay paragraphs need sourcing
 * C. No original research:
 * not sure about the interviews from unreliable sources
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold for a week. Posting this from the road, so I'll be freer to respond over next weekend
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold for a week. Posting this from the road, so I'll be freer to respond over next weekend
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold for a week. Posting this from the road, so I'll be freer to respond over next weekend


 * "See Also" section rules: links were already mentioned in article

Do players progress linearly though the levels? Can they choose which one they want to play? What kinds of projectiles does the ship shoot and where are the enemies coming from? Not sure the ship names matter here. I'm still not clear how this game works by the end of the section. Please clarify. Might be good to start with the basic controls, basic goals, etc. Single-player, multiplayer not explained.
 * Gameplay on broadness/clarity


 * Reception on broadness/clarity: Resogun's claim to fame is how reviewers found it the best PS4 launch title. It's hardly mentioned! More appropriately, it should be at the top of Reception. One of the interviews mentioned it was the top-rated PS4 game—was it? If so, that's obviously worth including (if sourced not from the interview). Also is there any rhyme or reason to this section? Almost every sentence is apparently unrelated to the next. Can you group them by things they have in common so as to make the information accessible? Not sure the scores are worth repeating if they're just in the reviews box to the right and are apropos of nothing.


 * Also Resogun won at least one big award that wasn't listed. After these fixes, the lede should be updated accordingly


 * for clarity, link jargon: "retro", "trophies", speed boost, game difficulties, levels


 * Lede: the Stardust titles are listed by name in the lede but not in the prose


 * Pickles and Pulkkinen in the infobox are unsourced in the rest of the article


 * Unsourced: several ¶ in Gameplay are unsourced. It should be sourced to secondary sources with references.


 * Source verification failed: the release dates are not in its reference


 * PSILU is not a reliable source, and perhaps not for S2P, gamerssphere either... I would check with WP:VG/RS. Sometimes a special case is made when articles use unreliable sources for their interviews...


 * NeoGAF is not a reliable source and must be replaced


 * How long was it in development? Would seem basic to know


 * what is the [sic] for?


 * These quotes can be paraphrased just fine, which is preferred over lengthy quotes


 * Grammar in Reception: punctuation should go on the outside almost always, per MOS:QUOTE


 * Infobox video game uses the media only where the distribution is ambiguous, which it isn't in this case. Should be removed.


 * size of screenshot needed to be reduced (length times width should be less than 100,000)


 * same for the logo, and its FUR needs to be actually filled out


 * The screenshot's rationale is also weak


 * The screenshot is very busy. It would help to have an explanation of what is happening within its caption.


 * Defender's image lacks a fair use rationale for this article. It either needs one, or to be removed.


 * I contacted the dev about releasing assets under free-use and they said that the assets were owned by Sony and that Sony wouldn't do so

outside GAN scope czar ♔   23:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure all of those dates are needed in the lede
 * those quotes in the lede are not necessary—it should be focused on being overview in nature, unless those quotes indicate something representative of all reviews
 * usually the game that won the award is not in the lede as it isn't vital to include
 * award names aren't italicized
 * grammar is weak in Dev section, needs rephrasing
 * , ping czar ♔   00:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the hold-up. I'll address the issues to the best of my ability. — SolarStarSpire (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , since it's been over a week and it doesn't look like the structural issues can be easily rectified, how would you feel about letting this go for now and renominating it in the future? czar ♔   19:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , that sounds good to me; I'd definitely like some more time to work on it. Thanks for taking the time to review it. — SolarStarSpire (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing czar ♔   16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)