Jump to content

Talk:SpaceChem/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Teancum (talk · contribs) 17:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

GA Criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days, and am going to try a new way to go about it. I have the criteria above in a show/hide, but below I'll list the issues I find, and I'll just list them as they come.

  • The entire gameplay section is supported by only one reference, failing criteria 2 at the moment.
Added refs. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are multiple external links in the prose. These should be converted to wikilinks or references where possible or removed all together.
Green tickY --Teancum (talk)
  • Per MOS:IMAGES where possible they should alternate sides. The gameplay image may be better suited as a left-align.
Green tickY --Teancum (talk)
  • WP:LAYOUT states that short and/or single line paragraphs should be minimized. The Post-release section could probably have its paragraphs merged into 2-3 paragraphs for cleanliness and clarity of reading.
Done --MASEM (t) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY (removed) --Teancum (talk)
  • The reference format is inconsistent. Some dates are in YYYY-MM-DD format, others are in Month, D, YYYY format. Additionally comparing GameRankings and Metacritic to other references they have both a work and a publisher, while others only use one or the other. Additionally the Edge magazine reference should be italicized.
Green tickY --Teancum (talk)
  • References should be placed after punctuation. There are instances where they are not.
Done (though I think the cases they were are now removed. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publications such as PC Gamer should be italicized.
Done (but again, I think the instances have been removed from the prose.) --MASEM (t) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edge Magazine said "The triumph of SpaceChem... should be something akin to The reviewer from Edge magazine said "The triumph of SpaceChem...
    • Unsure about whether this should be changed. Edge has a policy of never attributing reviews or features. Its possible that their reviews are carried out by more than one person; and they have said on occasion, that staff debate the score that should be awarded. - X201 (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barth stated that with sales of SpaceChem, he was able to quit his job and run his development company full time. - why is this notable?
See below, but added a comment about sales figures to put this in context. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Player generally must complete each puzzle -- "Player" --> "Players"
Green tickY --Teancum (talk)
  • The Twitter account should be removed from the External links section per WP:ELNO. The Zachtronics Industries link can also be removed as readers can find the company's official site through the aforementioned wikilink. Also consider adding the video games portal to this section
Green tickY --Teancum (talk)
  • Touch lightly on the game's Reception in the lead. It's the only thing not summarized in it.
Done. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is an article for it, please wikilink the word cation in the image caption. Not being versed in chemistry I had to look this up.
Done. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A final boss level, called "defense" levels -- Has both singular and plural. Choose which would fit best. If defense is a proper noun in the game please capitalize it (haven't played this)
Reworded. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that note "defense" and "ResearchNet" probably shouldn't be in quotations. I couldn't find the exact policy on it though, so if I'm wrong feel free to dispute it. They appear multiple times should you remove the quotes.
I've striped them. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ResearchNet appears with and without a space
Fixed. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SpaceChem took about a year with a team of 7 -- "7" --> "seven"
Fixed. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barth on design and production, Collin Arnold and Keith Holman on programming, Ryan Sumo on visuals, -- The use of the word "on" seems odd here, almost like it's introducing a rock band.
Fixed. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially, they had considered using Microsoft XNA to allow for a Xbox 360 port, but reconsidered their target platforms and used the Mono framework instead. -- Mono can actually compile to the 360, so this probably should be rephrased.
Explained better (Mono more portable basically) --MASEM (t) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Reception section should mention the article author as the one who gave the score, as the reviewer technically rates it and not the media outlet who merely publishes it.
Here I've moved out the individual scores back to the table (adding the Igormania one) and just summarized with the MetaCritic sccre. This avoids having to name the people via score, though when possible in describing *why* they liked the game, the names are still used (see the Edge magazine issue about). --MASEM (t) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #18 is listed as PC Gamer, but the review infobox lists it as PC Gamer UK
Fixed throuhgout. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also tried too much to incorporate a "science" theme -- why is "science" in quotes? The intro to this sentence is also phrased oddly
Reworded/cleaned up a bit. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've found in a quick overview. I have yet to read through the prose thoroughly. Feel free to fix any errors as we go, I'll just reply to each individual point with a "fixed" along with any comments. --Teancum (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


 On hold — I'm now done with the review. Sorry I had to state some obvious things, especially given your history of exceptional work here. I assume most of these were just things you hadn't got to yet. I'll give you some time to fix the remaining issues. --Teancum (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On "Barth stated that with sales of SpaceChem, he was able to quit his job and run his development company full time." - the reason I included this is because it is the only indication of sales numbers I can give. He made enough from the game to sustain himself. What that number is, no reliable source gives. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickYPass - Nice work, I've passed the article. --Teancum (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceChem/GA1&oldid=1077512941"