Talk:Rymdkapsel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Will leave some comments soon. This game actually sounds pretty fun. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 18:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 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:
 * C. No original research:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

 * The lead feels too short and could summarise the article better. Could you put anything more about the development/reception into the lead?
 * Who published the game? It doesn't mention this at all in the article. Did Grapefukt publish it as well as developing it?
 * Can the lead offer more on the criticisms of the game (if there are many)? Eg. Reviewers gave the game generally favorable reviews, where they appreciated its simplicity and challenge, but criticised its brevity and slow start... etc
 * "They have kept their original design as little white boxes" - this doesn't make sense? What kept their design as little white boxes?
 * "The game received "generally favorable" reviews" - just curious, why is this in quotations? It isn't quoted in the lead?
 * Just a suggestion, maybe you could incorporate some of the content from the reception section into the lead?

On hold
This is a generally clear, well written and another "straight to the point" article that supports the GA criteria. The issues mentioned above are minor however they are suggestions that could improve the article. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 19:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks—appreciate the review. A few questions. When you say the lede feels short, what aspects do you feel are unreflected? I already had two sentences about the development and a summary sentence on the reception that I felt gave each part due weight. I could go into the minutiae of singular situations during the development or singular opinions in the reception, but you know from my work that I try to leave the lede as a broad, quick overview rather than needlessly building it out. This said, if there is an important fact that belongs there or that readers are looking for, of course I could accommodate it. (For example, what more from the reception would you want to see in the lede?) There isn't any real publisher information—the credit is either erroneously attributed to the platform's company or to Grapefrukt. I added a citation to the infobox just for clarity, but the idea is that (as an indie publisher), the dev/pub credit is assumed to be the same. "Generally favorable" is quoted when it is coming directly from Metacritic (where it is a quote). I used to quote it in the lede too, but felt that it wasn't important to repeat Metacritic in the lede (and thus the quotes would be unnecessary). 4Players hasn't been discussed at WP:VG/RS as far as I can tell (so it wouldn't show up in the custom VGRS Google search just yet), but it has an editorial staff and is part of a game site network. It is included within Metacritic scores as one of the few non-English sources, so I felt it would be fine. Could bring it up at WP:VG/RS if necessary. czar ♔   04:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted
thank you for your response! Despite feeling that the lead was short, it does actually summarise the whole article in compliance to the GA criteria. I just felt like it could have been expanded through so many words but perhaps everyone has their different style of writing? I like your idea of giving the lead a quick and broad overview (in contrast of some other VG articles that has separate paragraphs on each section). Not too sure about 4Players, but if it's mentioned within Metacritic then it would appear reliable (I wouldn't let one reference stand in the way of a GAN anyway)! Anyway thank you for your fixes - the article meets the GA criteria as it is. I'm not sure why I was being sceptical! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 14:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, your skepticism is always appreciated as it makes me a better writer czar ♔   15:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Well, heh, I'm honoured! Thanks ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 15:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)