Talk:Escape Velocity Nova/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 17:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
In progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Overall a solid article, if short, but I understand that Mac shareware games are sadly not a huge wealth of information.
- The lead could use a line explaining the general premise of the game.
- Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9. Didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or failed verification.
- File:Escape Velocity Nova Gameplay.jpg could use with some beefing up of its fair use rationale to explain better why it's necessary to include.
- The main weakness of the article is coverage. The reception section is rather lacking, both in reviews and substantial content from those reviews.
- I found a few additional reviews of the game in MacNN, MacObserver, and GeekInsider (not entirely sure about the reliability of the latter, but might be worth hitting up WP:VG/S about it:) [1][2][3]
- In terms of old Mac mags there's MacAddict [4] and MacHome (June 2002, although I can't find an online copy in a cursory search.)
- There's a solid passage detailing how the original plugin for Nova was developed in The Secret History of Mac Gaming [5] that could be used to beef up the development section.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: Absolutely, the coverage has been the Achilles heel, and it has been extremely difficult to find. Honestly, I was very on the fence before sending this to GAN as to whether or not I was able to find enough. I do want to thank you for turning up the MacAddict source; now that I have seen it, I actually recalled reading it myself in 2002 when the magazine came out. I had been hesitant, though, to include MacNN and MacObserver because I questioned if they were indeed reliable sources or not - I'll defer to your judgment if you have one about any of them. I haven't spotted the MacHome issue yet, either; I'll keep my eye out. Otherwise, I have addressed the issues so far, as well as incorporated info into the development section as recommended. Let me know what you think on the sourcing - I've added MacAddict and MacNN for now, and I'm not sure what to make of MacObserver. Red Phoenix talk 23:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think MacObserver works; it's been around for more than 20 decades, it's got an editorial staff, and it's got a number of bigger Mac journalists who have contributed. I dunno if it'd meet any higher threshold akin to FA standards, but especially since it's being used for opinion in a review I don't see an issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've got a little more confidence in it now; the author of the article you shared is the same author as the MacAddict article. I've added it. Red Phoenix talk 00:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think the reception section could still use a bit more work. Right now, it's just reading a list of what different critics though, rather than synthesizing them into a more useful and broad summary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I buffed this up a bit more. Past reception in video games I've done, I've received mixed messages during reviews on "synthesizing" and whether that's OR or not, but I think I've got it pretty ironed out where it's not like we need a cited source to say the sky is blue. I'll let you have another look. Red Phoenix talk 01:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, it looks a little better. I probably shouldn't have used the word "synthesis" since that ties into original research on WP, but what I mean is you want to summarize critical opinion where possible versus just layering individual opinions one after another. I will take another look at the article today or tomorrow and either pass or come back with anything else. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I buffed this up a bit more. Past reception in video games I've done, I've received mixed messages during reviews on "synthesizing" and whether that's OR or not, but I think I've got it pretty ironed out where it's not like we need a cited source to say the sky is blue. I'll let you have another look. Red Phoenix talk 01:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think the reception section could still use a bit more work. Right now, it's just reading a list of what different critics though, rather than synthesizing them into a more useful and broad summary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've got a little more confidence in it now; the author of the article you shared is the same author as the MacAddict article. I've added it. Red Phoenix talk 00:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think MacObserver works; it's been around for more than 20 decades, it's got an editorial staff, and it's got a number of bigger Mac journalists who have contributed. I dunno if it'd meet any higher threshold akin to FA standards, but especially since it's being used for opinion in a review I don't see an issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)