Talk:Loved (video game)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Fix/address these and you've got a GA. Tezero (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Pics are fine; recommend expanding FURs if aiming for FAC
• Citation 6 (Kris Ligman) needs publisher/work
  • Fixed. 23W
• A few others have works but need publishers if available (or just switch everything to publisher-only/work-only/everything-as-publisher)
  • I believe works without a publisher would be considered self-published, so they don't need publishers. 23W
• Are links to publishers/works, if available, required? Admonish me if not, but I think they'd at least help
  • I perfer not to have them, as the section just becomes a sea of links. 23W
• "transforming from the exploration genre to a mining- and building-based adventure game" - what's the difference between exploration and adventure? Both are compatible with platforming anyway, e.g. Metroidvanias, some open-world games with platforming elements like The Simpsons Hit & Run. Any more information on these initial concepts available?
  • I guess because exploration is considered more nonlinear than adventure? I dunno, I took that near verbatim from the citation. 23W
• "with some reviewers finding the game to be thought provoking, while others have criticised it for having poor controls." - awkward construction (gerund in first clause, past-tense verb in second); also, "thought-provoking" should be hyphenated
  • Recast slightly: Written in Adobe Flash, the game was built over the course of about half a year in Ocias' spare time. Released online on 14 June 2010 onto various game hosting websites, it has garnered sizeable praise and scrutiny since its release, with critics finding the game to be thought-provoking while having poor controls.. 23W 02:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Are Kill Screen and Dude reliable sources? Not saying they're not - I know nothing about them - but why should one think they are?
  • Kill Screen seems to have garnered some praise from mainstream sources over the years; I asked WT:VG/RS and Sergecross73 said it was alright by the "music Wikipedia community". With Dude, I just wanted a foreign source. Smells of zine, but it's gathered some recognition in Italy. 23W
• "named it one of their top-11 favourite independent games" - was this part of a "top-11 games" (that's an odd accolade) ranking, or just part of a regular critical review? Also, top-11 isn't hyphenated
  • The former; I don't know why I named 11 when there's 16 listed in the source—fixed. 23W
• "which he jokingly figured to "have five seconds" of attention span" - a little awkward; rephrasing not necessary for GA, but at least does this need to be quoted?
  • Trimmed. 23W
• "sometimes to achieve goals but often to suggest actions that will kill the player character" - can you give a few examples?
  • Gave one example that was in the source: (such as falling into a pit full of spikes). 23W
• "players are sometimes, but not always, congratulated when following these instructions" - what if they aren't? Are they insulted?
  • Yep; expanded this. 23W

@Tezero: Thanks for taking this! How's it look now? 23W 02:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine. Surprised you're around, but hey, now you've got something off your list. Tezero (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: Sweet! 23W 06:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)