Talk:Sinistar: Unleashed/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bridies (talk · contribs) 14:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Starting review, comments shall follow in due course. bridies (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Prose is mostly good, and I'll likely do a minor copy edit once every thing else is done. Before that though, the lead has a couple of huge sentences that don't really work:


 * Originally envisioned as Out of the Void with no relationship to the Sinistar franchise, the studio shifted the focus of the game after licensing the aforementioned franchise from Midway Games in 1997, the same year development begun, and thus becoming a sequel to the original Sinistar game, developed and released by Williams in 1982.
 * Like its predecessor, and with the exception of integrated full three-dimensional graphics that led to a wider control scheme, Sinistar: Unleashed focuses the player into the destruction of the Sinistar, a big bio-mechanical machine that arrives through a jumpgate that is empowered by several mining machines called the Sporg, although the player can prevent the Sinistar from emerging by destroying the Sporg before the jumpgate is activated.
 * I asked a copyeditor to make some twists on the article. If you can do so too, i'd appreciate it a lot. I will, after it passes GA, bring the article to FA, so if you can help me to polish the prose to FA standard, better :)


 * Also, fix the italics on the websites one way or another. Generally, websites are not italicised. It's not a deal-breaker if they are (IMO), but here they're italicised in the references section but not in the prose and not in the infobox. So make it consistent either way.
 * Okay. I'll do it then :)


 * One other quick thing: I note the use of the word "arcade" to describe the game, in the game play section. I do know this word is often used to describe simple, action-orientated games in general. But here it's confusing as the game was a Windows game and not a coin-op. Suggest replacing it with "action", or if there's a specific source uses that word, cite it. bridies (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to action space shooter.

2. Mostly looks good. I will test-check some claims later. A couple of issues though:
 * I assume the nominee noted my post on the WP:VG talk page regarding Gaming Age. I hold it to clearly not pass WP:RS and there's no consensus that it does. So it needs to be removed and replaced with something better if at all possible (Russia's Absolute Games has a review if nothing else) and maybe some more detail from reviews already there.
 * Actually i brought the reliability point of Gaming Age at FAC and all reviewers agreed that Gaming Age is notable and reliable enough when used with games released before mid-2000s, so there is no reason to remove it as there is not many reviews for the game. And I avoided using non-english reviews as I considered that enlgish ones were enough.
 * Which FAC was this? bridies (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The System Shock 2 4th FAC. There, one user asked about Gaming Age and apart from quaetioning his importance, he agreed that the site is reliable enough to be included. — ΛΧΣ  21™  16:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't. He questioned it's use as a source due to it's dubious "influence and importance", which is part of WP's definition of "reliability". If nothing else, he definitely didn't agree it was reliable (he said "it's not about a reliability"). Sorry, but I will not pass this as a GA with this source in, unless consensus steamrollers me. So if you prefer to leave it in, I will ask for a 2nd opinion once the other issues are fixed. bridies (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, lets work on everything alse and talk about the review later could we? I have no problem in removing the review but i would like to solve the reliability issue first if possible okay? :) — ΛΧΣ  21™  16:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. bridies (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I really don't think one can make claims like "universally lauding its graphics", "Almost all critics agreed onto the fact", "...as well as most critics" and so forth, based on the reviews in the article. WP:SYNTH aside, there are at least some international print magazine reviews not covered here.
 * Mmm I may change that wording, although all critics lauded the graphics. And well, yes, they are some printed magazines not covered as I don't have them on hand and didn't found them on the web. I searched thru 1000 Google Search results and all that i found is here.
 * What do you mean "all critics"? All the critics you've read isn't enough to say "all critics". TBH, I don't think one could ever claim that directly, because of WP:SYNTH. Best bet is a secondary source (Metacritics "universal acclaim" statements, for example) which says that. But I don't think I saw one here. bridies (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. Is it accurate if i say "most critics"? Or "several critics"? Or just write that "Sinistar: Unleashed received praise for it's graphics and similarity with its predecessor" and forget about the synth? What do you recommend? — ΛΧΣ  21™  16:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Several critics" is fine, as is that sentence. bridies (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What's the deal with GameRankings? This one is a bit dubious in the first place, but at least provide a citation: there doesn't appear to be one.
 * OMG I forgot to add the citation. GameRankings is usually best to be avoided, but as Metacritic has no score, i used it. I will add the citation now.

3. Broad in its coverage. The reception section isn't greatly so, but about as best can be expected in this instance.

4. Mostly neutral, but there's the dubious claims of universal acclaim for some features (see above).

5. Article has the box art, the FUR for which is now just about adequate (suggest improving it further if at all possible: copyright holder/author, commercial related info, resolution explanation)
 * But: it needs a screen shot. This is standard with video game articles, but I think is really needed here just to understand the game. Kind of hard to figure out what a "unique boss called the Sinistar" or the "Distilled Evil, and their slaves, the Sporg" or the "jumpgate" might be otherwise.

6. Stable


 * I think I have fixed all but the screenshot. After reding the page you provided about the Gaming Age "Help Wanted", i changed my mind about the website and removed it =/ Anything else to be fixed? :) — ΛΧΣ  21™  16:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think anything further should be minor, other than the screen shot. I will hopefully get to it tomorrow, as I should really go to bed now... I'm in the other country beginning with a V... :) bridies (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey! Anything else to be made? :) Also, i'd like to have a talk to you about the FAC of System Shock 2; i need some recommendations about those 2 sources and some comments on prose or other things. I want it to be promoted :) — ΛΧΣ  21™  15:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I believe everything raised above is now fixed. I have also now copy edited the article, hopefully getting all the grammar issues, and the prose should be of at least GA standard. I shall pass this presently. bridies (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Also, since some advice aimed at a prospective FAC was requested:
 * The prose would need to be improved further. However, I haven't got much to say about this specifically: IMO, this can really only be done effectively by having a skilled writer go through it, using his own intuition and rewriting things if necessary.
 * A broader range of sources and commentary would be needed in the reception section. This would be the hardest thing: one would need to get hold of some old print sources somehow, in languages other than English if necessary. Sources for this game are very hard to come by, but even casting around Mobygames shows a fair sampling of international print sources exist. They may be very hard to actually find in practice, but ultimately at FAC this wouldn't excuse a lower standard of reception section. TBH, for this reason, I wouldn't envy anyone trying to get this article to FAC...
 * Fair use-rationales. I improved the FUR for the screenshot, and you could look at that (or some current FAs) for pointers, but the FURs would probably have to improved further for FAC. Reviewers there can be picky about those. bridies (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)