Talk:Aperture Tag/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 10:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Mir Novov (talk · contribs) 01:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I have lot of experience with Portal 2 mod pages, but surprisingly it doesn’t seem I’ve edited this one. I will review this article shortly. ― novov (t c) 01:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems to have no major edit wars or disputes.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead

• What exactly is meant by rotated walls? The terminology is used several times, but I don't understand what makes that a mechanic, and what gameplay it is used for. Some walls in Portal 2 are on angles, so could probably be called "rotated".
  •  Done Removed it from the article as it was cited to the Mash Those Buttons ref. I was confused too when reading the article, but my first thought were those curved walls that are used for surfing in the game.
• Pneumatic Diversity tubes is inconsistently capitalised (the in-game terminology is actually Pneumatic Diversity Vents, though if a source calls them tubes, then I guess it's fine). Again, this occurs throughout the article.
  •  Done Changed it to "Pneumatic Diversity Tubes".
• sountrack is misspelt.
  •  Done Removed it as it was cited to the ValveTime ref.
• writing, voice acting, and Nigel seems redundant to me; Nigel is part of the writing and seems to be the only major voice-acted character.
  •  Done
• the community complained about the pricing is unclear. Although the lead is supposed to be summnative, it should still stand on its own, so it should explicitly state that players complained about the mod being a paid product or something along those lines.
  •  Done

Gameplay

• Nice opening paragraph; really explains how Tag is distinct from Portal 2.
• The first source does not verify that the game is in first-person perspective.
  •  Done
• Nigel is a narrative element and doesn't warrant a mention in the gameplay section.
  •  Done
• Informal language like as fast as possible should be avoided and is technically misleading; something like timed puzzles would be better wording.
  •  Done
• The fizzler isn't new, it exists in Portal 2 at the entry and exit of each test chamber, and IIRC makes an appearance in one puzzle. The paint fizzler is the new introduction in Tag (as opposed to the normal fizzler).
  •  Done Yup.
• While traveling through the tubes, the player can see other test chambers and old parts of Aperture Science facilities is narrative visuals, and doesn't concern gameplay.
  •  Done Removed
• The game does not feature the complex physics of Portal 2 and mostly relies on static features. What is meant by this?
  •  Done Reworded

Plot

• Per WP:CONSECUTIVECITE, sources should not be repeated every sentence unless the citations are different. Just place the citation at the end of a block of text cited to one source. This goes for other sections as well.
  •  Done

You missed some citations in other sections, but since it's easy enough I've went ahead and fixed this.

• There is no explanation of what the Enrichment Centre is. Remember that the article should stand alone without requiring the player to read Portal 2.
  •  Done
• the player isn't the main character of the game, say test subject or player character instead, cf. MOS:REALWORLD. This helps distinguish in-game narrative actions from actual actions undertaken by the player, like At the last chamber, the player can choose one of the endings.
  •  Done
• Is Aperture Laboratories Stability Stable Energy Reactor a typo or just humourous naming?
  • Seems like humorous naming, that's the full name of ALSSER.

Fair enough.

• The player then must flee the reactor as quickly as possible but there is no mention of them entering said reactor.
  •  Done
• At the last chamber, the player can choose one of the endings. How?
  • The next two sentences are supposed to explain the endings?

True, though I think it works better explained first.

Development

• the game was designed using Portal 2 Authoring Tools in the Hammer editor. My understanding is that Hammer is part of the authoring tools, not vice versa.
  •  Done Correct
• designed out is too informal, just say designed.
  •  Done
• Prior to the release of Aperture Tag, demo levels of the game were available on the Steam Workshop. I presume this is the Workshop for Portal 2 and not Tag? This should be explicitly stated.
  •  Done
• Roman was initially undecided on whether to publish the game with a price tag or to make it free of charge occurs before the game's release, so should be ordered before it in the prose. Probably clearly link these, something like Roman was initially undecided on whether to publish the Aperture Tag with a price tag or to make it free of charge. He eventually decided to price it at US$7, making it the first paid mod on Steam. It was released on July 15, 2014, for Microsoft Windows and OS X platforms.
  •  Done
• The game has its own Steam Trading Cards. Heaps of Steam games have these, this isn't notable.
  •  Done This is, however, the only Portal mod to have its own trading cards and items.

Yes, but I still wouldn't call it notable. Most players don't particularly care about those features, seems like WP:TRIVIA to me.

Sourcing and reception

Nice job finding the Pelit magazine coverage. However, some of the other sources used give me pause:

• Shark Puppet seems to not have a huge amount of formal organisation. However, a preponderance of the authors have lots of professional journalism/media experience (including the article author) so it can barely slip through IMO.
  • Sounds good
• I agree with User:Boneless Pizza! that Valve Time is probably not suitable, being a fan forum not a gaming publication.
  •  Done Removed
• Press Those Buttons seems to have no editorial policy or qualified staff, so I would doubt its reliablity.
  •  Done That sucks. I've removed the ref and all content that it backed up.

I am aware that this leaves the reception somewhat sparse, but fan-generated content usually does not recieve the same depth of reception — see Mother 3 fan translation. However, this dearth may prevent the article from reaching FA level.

• Additionally, the reception section should be sorted by topic per MOS:VG#Reception.
  •  Done If you think the reception could be improved even more, feel free to reword it.
• Personally, I'd cut down on the length of direct quotations and use original prose more to explain the reviewers' positions.
  •  Done

Images

The images follow fairly standard usage of imagery for VG articles, and abide by WP:NFCC with the correct rationales etc. The choice of screenshot suitably illustrates the gameplay, and it is a good choice to highlight the elements that are distinct from the base Portal series. Personally, since the USP of the mod is the focus on gels instead of portals, I would show the gels/gel gun more directly, but that's just my opinion.

• MOS:CAPLENGTH specifies that If nothing more than the page name needs to be said about the image, then the caption should be omitted. The general trend — as stated in WP:VGBOX — is to not just say "cover art for the game" etc.; therefore, the infobox caption should probably be removed.
  •  Done
• The Aperture Tag should have no article.
  •  Done
• show in the image should be shown.
  •  Done

Miscellanea

The article seems to have no major edit wars or disputes, so no issues here. The copyvio detector has a rate of 24.8%; however, most of this is from quotes.

Overall

This article has a number of issues, but they are fixable, and most of them are relatively minor. Therefore, I am placing this review  On hold under the standard GA process, with a timeframe of seven days to bring the article up to scratch. ― novov (t c) 06:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mir Novov: I appreciate that you actually took time to explain everything in the review. This (and the two other GANs) are my first video game GA nominations so there would definitely be some errors (mostly in sourcing because I was unsure which refs to keep). I’ll address the issues today. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mir Novov: I've addressed all of your comments. I've also added two more references to the article (Xataka Mexico and VKPlay). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The Xataka source is a rerun of a Kotaku article. Use the original article instead; Kotaku is a situational source but the article that is linked to seems to be fine.

VK Play (from what I can tell VK Play Media seems to be the branding for their news site as opposed to games publishing/services) seems to have a well defined editorial staff and structure, with quite a few people with credentials in journalism and/or experience in Russian gaming RSes. And of course VK is a major Russian company, so its hardly some fly-by-night operation; the potential conflict of interest gives me pause, but IGN bought Humble and it's still an RS. ― novov (t c) 08:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mir Novov: I've removed the Xataka ref. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

In that case, it should be good to go. Nice work! ― novov (t c) 09:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for helping! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)