Talk:Alto's Adventure/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review, but I only have a few minutes right now- only the first few comments! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given how short this article is, the lead is too long. Could it be condensed to two shortish paragraphs?
"racking up" is informal
"They made the game to emulate the ethereal atmosphere of snowboarding and avoid video game console-type gameplay elements. The game was inspired by Journey (2012) and Windosill (2009), but particularly Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (2000), whose fun, positive goals and Bushnell's Law qualities influenced the gameplay." This is difficult to follow.
Quotes always need citing- even in the lead.
Is there that much difference between praising the art style and praising the aesthetics?
"holds the screen midair to perform tricks" What, swings it around above their head?
"through the cycle of the day," Is that an in-game day or real-world day?
"wanted to bring the essence of the Tony Hawk games of their youth into Alto's Adventure, such as "fun, positive goals" and an "easy to learn, hard to master" trick system." I don't think "essence" is the right word, here. How about something like "wanted to bring certain key aspects of the Tony Hawk games of their youth into Alto's Adventure, such as "fun, positive goals" and an "easy to learn, hard to master" trick system."?
"Nelson also characterized their users' impressions as "highly positive"." I don't know what you mean by "their users" in this context.
"Eric Ford of the same publication" Same publication as what?
"He thought its "stunningly simple" gameplay to be a "bloody good time" and" Gameplay isn't a "good time"- I assume you mean something like "He thought its "stunningly simple" gameplay led to him having "bloody good time" while playing the game and"
The sources look appropriate, but I do wonder whether there may be more out there- the critics imply there was a lot of buzz, but that's not reflected in the few sources you cite!
Given that Category:Endless runner games is a subcategory of Category:Platform games, you probably don't need the latter.

Nice little article- as a general note, perhaps try to avoid overcomplicating your writing. Formal, professional writing can be consistent with simple sentences! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the review, @J Milburn! I believe I've addressed your points, if you'd like to take a look. The difference between art style and aesthetics, to me, is the difference between the physical, descriptive, constitutive details of an image (color, use of line, etc.) versus underlying philosophy or principles, both of which can be separately praised, though I removed where "sense of atmosphere" duplicated "aesthetics". I also think gameplay can surely be characterized as a bloody good time/fun—it's practically all that game reviewers ever write. I think the sourcing is adequate for GA, though it can surely be expanded. I have a few suggestions I'm still working in. I left the Platform games cat as "Endless runner" is not enough of a dedicated genre quite yet to diffuse from the former. (Also I had just made the Endless runner category so I wasn't sure it'd stick.) Thanks again! czar ⨹ 05:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay can't be referred to as "a bloody good time" as gameplay and time are different kinds of things. You can have a "bloody good time" while playing, or the gameplay can contribute to you having a "bloody good time", but to say that gameplay is a "bloody good time" is wrong. Similarly, an apple can't be a "bloody good taste", but it can have a bloody good taste. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, the quote was actually "bloody good fun", which I think you would agree fits the structure better. How do the other changes look? czar ⨹ 13:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now happy with the prose for GAC purposes. The outstanding issue is the images. I have OTRS access, but I find using it a bit of a pain... I'll get to it soon if no one else does. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn, I'm not sure the files need to be OTRS-confirmed for the purposes of the GAN, but I'd appreciate the review anyway. I got no bites at the Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard, so you might want to take a stab yourself, if that's the next step. Heads up that the OTRS ticket is messed up—it was merged incorrectly with several other OTRS tickets I have open and needs to be split. czar ⨹ 22:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, it's what put me off dealing with it earlier... I'll have another look soon (I'm operating on little sleep right now, so I don't think it'll be tonight...). Josh Milburn (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and promote rather than risk making a mess of the ticket. I'm happy that the images have been released- whether the ticket has been properly processed seems to be more of a technicality. I trust that any problems can be quickly resolved. Anyway, good work! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]