Talk:The Marriage (video game)/GA1

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

Reviewer: DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) 14:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Very much looking forward to this review. Hopefully, I can start looking into the text itself tomorrow. As of yet, I have focused on checking for reliability, disambigulation, fair use, copyvio etc.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Lede

 * expression --> expressions? I assume both are correct, depending if you talk about artistic expression as such or several forms of artistic expressions but as you use plural throughout the sentence expressions could be the way to go here. I am not that much of an arts scholar though...
 * I guess I think of "kind/type/form of artistic expression" being the concept, and pluralizing it being "types/types/forms of artistic expression". Maybe "form" reads a little easier in that way. It seems right to me, but now I'm doubting my own grammar. :) Will come back to it. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Gameplay

 * the article should clearly differentiate between moving the cursor over an object and moving the mouse. --> "Moving the mouse over a circle" f.e.


 * I would merge the first and last paragraphs into one

Background and intent

 * no need to link Stars Over Half Moon Bay if there is no article (yet). Especially since A Walk with Max is not linked either
 * The backstory here is that I started to compile some sources for that game while writing this and intended to write it. Don't remember why I didn't, but as it's not on my to do list and I don't recall if I found enough to establish notability... ✅


 * to Carmel, California , with his wife -->lose the comma

Interpretation and analysis

 * lose "and presentations" in the first sentence. Academic presentations (almost) always inluce publishing a paper anyways.
 * I've presented at a lot of conferences/events, and most haven't required a full paper to go with the presentation. :) There are some differences depending on the field and the role of the conference, though. Some require it, some require it but don't publish it, some don't require it but offer to publish papers people did write, some don't involve a paper at all. All of this said, I suppose there's not much point making the distinction on Wikipedia, since if there was only a presentation and no accompanying paper, there would be nothing to cite here. :) And all of these are published in proceedings, so your point stands. ✅


 * also, break it up into two sentences at around "both". Sentence is really complex as it is right now.


 * you don't need to name every university the scholars are working at. If they change, the article contains incorrect information, also it is an unnecessary detail.


 * Some of quotes in the first and last paragraphs could be shortened or paraphrased in my opinion. F.e. "was that they felt my explanations were unduly detailed. I stand by the decision to include the explanation however as I think it helped some folks understand my intent and I didn't think it was fair just to leave them without explanation." could be partially or entirely paraphrased.

Reception and influence

 * Here are a lot of overly long quotes as well. "The game, and my experience discussing it, have reminded me of experiences at galleries of modern art—for each piece, I stare at it, scratch my head a bit, and try to mine the piece for meaning of some kind. I'm also reminded of watching a David Lynch movie with friends—we'd spend the rest of the evening discussing what the movie might mean." another example of a quote that could easily be finished after modern art without losing meaning.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
Yes. Everthings is sourced. Took a look at all sources concerning their reliability. Everything is in order here, lots of academic essays.

However, due to the long quotes, the copyvio is a bit worrying. Have to take a look at the exact use of the quotes tomorrow, some of them might be shortened though.
 * It's a fair concern of course. Certainly paraphrasing is best most of the time. The reason I felt these are called for is the extent to which discourse about the game is very heavy on analysis, interpretation, criticism, abstraction, theory, etc. It's the sort of stuff that's hard to state in Wikipedia's voice without losing a lot. Curious to see how much you agree with that and/or if you see parts that could/should be cut. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Made some remarks on that above. Mostly concerning quotes which I would deem overly long.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What also strikes me is that citations of journals/papers do not include page numbers, even when you only cite a specific paragraph or make a direct quote. That should be adressed as well. F.e. citation 18.
 * Added some of these. Admittedly always torn about page numbers. Rarely do I use something only for a quote, and I prefer not to change the citation style to allow for repeats with different page numbers. Was about to use rps, but it seemed doable in this case without getting into that messiness. ✅

3. Is it broad in its coverage?
Yes. The article adresses all relevant points.

4. Is it neutral?
Yes.

5. Is it stable?
Yes. Absolutely nothing is going to change here.

6. Is it illustrated?
Yes, sufficiently. Is the picture in the infobox the actual box art?
 * No. There's no box and no official image as far as I know, so it's a screenshot I made myself. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. Does it have some sort of title screen that could be used? Then you could move the original image in the gameplay section.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sort of? It's "The Marriage" written in a plain sans serif font on a plain background. Don't really think it adds anything, really. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion
Overall, a good piece of work qualifying for a direct pass. However, some of the quotes should be shortened or paraphrased and the issue with the page numbers needs to be adressed, along with the other minor issues I have pointed out.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think I've addressed all of the above. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll update the article now!--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)