Talk:Uru: Ages Beyond Myst/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

I see there is still a lot of constructive editing going on. I'll put the review on hold until most of the merging/editing has been completed. In the meantime,
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Tbe link to movie Trailer redirects to film trailer - might want to fix. G.A.N.G doesn't go anywhere. Prose is generally well done, maybe run through it one or two more times, putting emphasis on the lead; the third paragraph seems to get off to a clunky start. (Maybe swap 'warm' with something else.. enthusiastic?)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * A few of the refs use a different format for the dates
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I'm a bit on the fence whether the audio section really needs a track listing, or indeed, as much attention given to it as it has. The Plot section seems very weak - the storyline isn't made as obvious as perhaps it should.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * \ / (⁂) 07:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. To address some of your points: The refs use different date formats because there are two used: cite news and cite web. I tried tinkering with the code to make their accessdate output the same as date formatting is now passé. The audio section is well-developed, but I don't see how that's a problem; the information was merged in from a poor article on the music as a standalone release; that's why it has the tracklist, but I think you'll find this is an accepted practice in many video game articles.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * \ / (⁂) 07:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. To address some of your points: The refs use different date formats because there are two used: cite news and cite web. I tried tinkering with the code to make their accessdate output the same as date formatting is now passé. The audio section is well-developed, but I don't see how that's a problem; the information was merged in from a poor article on the music as a standalone release; that's why it has the tracklist, but I think you'll find this is an accepted practice in many video game articles.

I've tried reorganizing the lead; see what you think now, and I will go through and do some spelling/grammar checks (as well as if any information from the tbd merge is added.) As for the plot section, I'm trying not to go into detail past the retail version because it gets very confusing very fast for someone not thoroughly understanding the story of the game, to the point it's nonsensical. Can you point out what is confusing?


 * Thanks for the update. I like the new lead, the prose it looking solid. In the gameplay section, I can see 'takes place' one sentence after another; Possibly reorganise the sentence structure so that the note about the Ages is next to the other sentence on it. Add 'item' before 'inventory'. The introduction to the Ages isn't completely obvious. How are the books linked? Magic or otherwise? I assume Cyan is real, but it gets confusing mixing fiction with semi-fiction without noting the change or clarifying the situation, especially since you mention Myst as selling well. As with the audio, if that is the consensus I'm not one to change it. \ / (⁂) 20:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done the rewording above to improve flow and grammar. I've rewritten the story section; whether it's magic or science is never made clear in the Myst story, but hopefully the description is better. I've also made changes which should hopefully make it clearer that it's fictional, but uses real-world events. Take a look now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 20:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is a lot better. I'm going to leave it on hold until the merge is complete. What is the progress on the merge at the moment? Nearly finished? \ / (⁂) 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll see. I'll leave you a note on your talk page when it's resolved one way or another. Thanks for the review, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)