Talk:Secret of Evermore/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Secret of Evermore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be reviewing this article in due course, looks like a healthy specimen. Someoneanother 16:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, after digesting the article some a host of small issues have emerged, hope you're ready to do some work on this one. The sources all but cover the bases so it should be a case of editing rather than digging up more. I'm breaking it down into sections and will keep passing over the article in the meantime. Neutrality isn't an issue, the image fair use rationales could do with a tweek, pretty much all the info is there. There are a couple of gaps though.

Images
Fair use rationales in the images are all well and good, but these two lines bother me: "The only purpose for the inclusion of this image is to convey to the reader what the game looks like." and "The purpose of this image is to aid in the description of the fictional world of Secret of Evermore and no other." Both of these are saying the same thing and are stating that the images are just decoration, which is the polar opposite of what should be there to assert fair use. Replacing these lines with an actual reason for the images being there, IE "this image shows the boy encountering his transformed dog for the first time, an important and ongoing aspect of the game" would be better.✅

Lead

 * "the game was not a financial success" I don't see any reference to this in the article proper, number of units sold etc.✅
 * Comment: There is no (reliable) sales information about the game that I could find. I've simply removed this aspect from the lead.


 * "It is also the subject of much controversy concerning.." rather than describe this as a controversy, could it instead state exactly what the situation was, IE "it was believed that the release of SoE's release prevented an English-language version of SD3 being released, though this was not the case because..", something along those lines.✅
 * This section could use a little more detail on what exactly the reviewers did and didn't like.✅
 * "moderately good" Positive? When qualified with the details stipulated above it would be more accurate.✅

Gameplay

 * The Currency and trading subheading is surplus, there's not enough text within to warrant a break in the flow.✅
 * "his dog will be controlled by the CPU (and vice-versa)" > "his dog will be controlled by the game's artificial intelligence, and vice-versa".✅
 * "where they can regain their hit points (HP) " The contraction isn't even used in the article, and it's best to avoid them if at all possible.✅
 * "unlocking a new charged attack move with each level." What are charged attack moves? If the following sentence describes them then it needs to be made more clear that charge attacks are being discussed as opposed to standard attacks.✅
 * " With the exception of the Bone Crusher, Almost all swords, axes, and spears..." ✅
 * "The dog can level up his attack as well." > "The dog's attack level can also be increased by.." How is it increased?✅
 * "In Gothica and Omnitopia, however, the ingredients become more advanced (ethanol, dry ice, etc). Only the boy can use Alchemy. " In the previous sentence, the first two realms are described as 'primitive' and the potential alchemy ingredients are without a bracket, could this sentence be consistent? IE 'advanced realms' and unbracketed ingredients. That the boy is the only one who can use alchemy is a safe assumption.✅
 * "..any formula that has already been learned can be shelved " "stored for later use" would work better.✅
 * This section has some referencing holes, for instance at the end of the first paragraph, try to reign the unreferenced material in.✅

Plot

 * References, the entire setting subsection has none, there are considerable gaps within the story section.✅
 * "B movies" is given a hyphen in the development section - needs to consistently be one or the other.✅

Development

 * "George Sinfield, figured" 'Decided'.✅
 * "these factors were designed from scratch and were merely copied from the latter because they had been proven to work." "From scratch" is too casual, "merely" is a judgement, "proven to work" could do with a little clarification - does this mean proved easy to navigate, effective?✅
 * "Particularly of note" if it wasn't of note it wouldn't be in the article, please just state what's trying to be conveyed to the reader.✅
 * "Secret of Evermore. It remains an extremely rare disc to collect." Doesn't make much sense - if the number of manufactured discs hasn't been increased then how can it do anything but 'remain'? Is this supposed to mean that the disc is collectible?✅
 * The album tracklist features a massive yawning gap between track name and track length, could another template be used or could it be fixed so that it isn't like an eye exam?✅

Release and Reception

 * Could this be renamed to just 'reception'? ✅ The release dates feature for the third time in the article, they're surplus. The PAL version wasn't released with a guide, or at least some PAL versions wasn't - I distinctly remember the UK version which just features the US box art with a purple/mauve border. Unless you can find a source clarifying exactly what was released where, the info doesn't seem particularly relevant. The statement "not released in Japan" seems redundant.
 * The reception is very 'so and so said this, Tom said that, Dick said the other, Harry said blah', rather than finding common statements from multiple sources. Could this be tweaked?✅
 * Also, very little info is being mined from these sources, apparently all EGM have to say is "the game's difficulty an improvement over Square's RPG Chrono Trigger." Is there nothing more of use from that source?✅
 * " There is no evidence to support that Secret of Evermore's release had any effect on any translations of Square's Japanese titles. " In which case it doesn't need saying.✅
 * "the team that developed Secret of Evermore was assembled from the ground up" Could use clarification, according to the interview the team was built from newly-hired staff.✅
 * "Secret of Evermore received fairly good" I'd say 'positive' is a more concise way of putting it - the review scores hardly correlate with negativity.✅
 * "Super Play calls the game only mildly entertaining and claims that being developed by Square" Switch to past-tense, IE 'called' and 'claimed'.✅
 * This is the section where that missing info on the sales needs to be.✅

Right, that's it so far, there's more than I'd first expected to be honest, and some of the sourcing issues are of concern. Any questions or comments please respond here (I'm watching) please contact me via my talkpage. Thanks to all editors who've brought the article this far. Someoneanother 16:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so now we're left some sourcing issues. I'm assuming you have access to the manual, this should help all but the plot section.

Gameplay

 * "By repeatedly defeating enemies, the dog can level up his attack as well." Much better, but it isn't cited, do none of your sources cover this?✅
 * Comment: Removed the statement because I couldn't find an adequate reference.

Alchemy subheading

 * The last sentence of the first paragraph could be cited to the list of recipes in the manual, which lists each region along with which ingredients are located there.✅
 * The second paragraph "A secondary function.." could be tagged to the end of the third, leaving two paragraphs in the section.✅
 * What is currently the third paragraph could be cited from the manual, if the version of the manual I was reading at Gamers Graveyard is the same, all the info is there.✅

Plot

 * This needs citing with quotes from the in-game text wherever there are gaps, either dialogue or on-screen messages. See the plot section of Golden Sun: The Lost Age as an example. This will typically involve playing the game through and taking notes. Alongside locating sources this is the major sticking point with videogame articles.
 * re. this question; I don't consider absolute references to be an absolute necessity. The section just has to be clear of POV and clearly a neutral interpretation of the game's events (which a reviewer can usually verify by looking at a walkthrough/storyline summary). I know a few people consider specific sources a necessity, but most (I believe) don't; I for one have no issue with the plot section as it is. —Giggy 11:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time Giggy. Someoneanother 12:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're happy to deal with the above issues then there's nobody stood behind you with a stopwatch, but I can't pass the article until the plot section is dealt with. Just keep me in the loop. If you don't feel you have the time or the inclination to cite the plot and deal with the other points above, let me know and I'll fail the article for now and you can work on it at your leisure. Someoneanother 14:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Secret of Evermore is now a Good Article, thank you for your work Hibana. Someoneanother 13:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)