Talk:Unavowed/GA1

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

Reviewer: TarkusAB (talk · contribs) 22:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll do this one cuz it's been hanging out there for a while. TarkusAB talk 22:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Gameplay

 * " reminiscent of the Monkey Island series of video games or the various Quest video games " change to " reminiscent of the Monkey Island series of video games or the various Quest video games ", people have no reason to think you're talking about a movie or something. ✅
 * "inevitably influenced" the word "inevitably" can be removed ✅
 * "except when not possessed by the demon." You haven't explained what "the demon" is. Maybe say "except when not possessed by an enemy in the story." I am not familiar at all with this game, and the way "the demon" comes out of nowhere without any explanation, it almost reads like vandalism. ✅
 * "The game takes place in various New York settings, such as Chinatown, Brooklyn, Staten Island or Wall Street." This is solely plot related so remove. If you move to Plot section, wikilink the boroughs and neighborhoods. ✅
 * "Instead of classical combat," I don't know what classical combat is, maybe just omit this. ✅
 * " amount of savegames" typo, savegames is not a word. Try "save files" ✅
 * Ordering. I was confused about how the game played until I read the second paragraph. That information should be earlier. I suggest merging this paragraph into the first between "...influenced by the player's choices." and "All characters feature...". Then move the stuff about combat and save files to the end of the final paragraph in gameplay. ✅

Synopsis

 * Since this is the first time Wadjet Eye is mentioned in the body, link it, as well as Blackwell series. ✅
 * In the last paragraph, you say "choosing the first or second option" and "choosing the third or fourth option". Is this truly a choice made by the player, or are these endings each the result of several different choices made during the game? They way it's written, it sounds like a box comes up and literally asks the player what ending option to choose. If it's more organic, try writing "If the first or second endings are triggered..." ✅ (It's basically the result of the last conversation in which you can choose to defy the protagonist, join them, kill their body or force to release you by threatening to kill their body. I hope it's clearer now)

Development

 * "in March 2016 in a post in the Adventure Game Studio forums" change to "in March 2016 on the Adventure Game Studio forums" ✅
 * "It was the first game Gilbert has written since 2014" change to "It was the first game Gilbert wrote since 2014" ✅
 * "Unavowed is built using the Adventure Game Studio engine" change to "Unavowed was built with the Adventure Game Studio engine" ✅
 * "who also worked on previous Wadjet Eye Games" I don't think you meant to capitalize games here. ✅

Reception

 * "claimed that Ben Chandler, the game's designer" I think you mean "artist", game designers design the actual gameplay ✅
 * Replay-value does not need a hyphen and you can wikilink it ✅ (didn't know such an article existed)
 * "Adventure Gamers rated the game 5 out of 5 stars" you already put the star score in the box so remove it here ✅
 * ""Quest" games", is there a reason Quest is in quotes and not italicized? ✅
 * "Monkey Island series of video games", just say Monkey Island series, people will assume its a game unless you give them reason to think otherwise. ✅

Lead

 * As a summary of the article, a little more development info would be nice, maybe like why they went with a pixel art style ✅
 * The summarized reception here could use a mention about how the art was praised. Seems to have been a high point for many that is oddly missing here. ✅
 * Resolve citation needed tag in infobox ✅
 * Genre in infobox should be capitalized ❌
 * Mode can just be Single-player, not single-player video game ❌
 * publisher does not need to be linked if same as developer ❌
 * I've never seen so many wikidata transclusions, any reason the information isn't written in the source here?
 * Someone told me that we should use Wikidata for infoboxes now because it allows more projects to use the same data. I can move it to the article of course if you think that's better. Regards So  Why  14:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Other comments

 * Can't run the copyvio detector at the moment (firewall where I currently am). Will run later.

Final comments

 * Great work, I made some comments above. Ping me when you've gone through or have any questions. TarkusAB talk 22:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review! I think I have addressed all of your comments as indicated above. As for the Wikidata stuff, we probably need to figure out how WP:VG wants to handle such inconsistencies. Regards So  Why  14:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The wikidata issues are a technical one, some functionality was unintentionally lost when the infobox was converted from Module:Wikidata to Module:WikidataIB. I've pinged Mike Peel and RexxS at the related talk section on WT:VG to take a look. It will hopefully be resolved soon and I do not think it should impact this GA or be considered in the review. -- ferret (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ferret. Looks like those issues will work themselves out shortly.
 * I ran copyvio checker and there were no issues. Since all other issues were addressed, I think the article meets the GA criteria so pass. TarkusAB talk 00:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)