Talk:Escaped Chasm

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Escaped Chasm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sparkl (talk · contribs) 22:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Mir Novov (talk · contribs) 06:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this shortly. ― novov (t c) 06:59, 31 March 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):

   • The story was commented by Game Informer as having a lo-fi aesthetic. is grammatically incorrect.
   • In my opinion, the first two sentences dealing with the gameplay should be separated from the prose dealing with the plot, as the topics are somewhat different.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section):

   b (inline citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

   d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   (source spot-check done):

   The article turns up clean on Earwig. Regarding sourcing, I've checked the whole article as it's quite brief.

   • The lead states that Chang is best known for her work on the game while the body only states she is known for it.
   • The Japanese IGN article does not verify the claim that Sleeping lets the player watch a dream sequence and continue to the next day in my opinion. It does mention sleeping, but not that it's a player-initiated action or that it leads to dreams. Same goes for writing the events in a diary.
   • I think the initial reception summary sentence is a bit of a stretch given the meagre amount of reception sources, most of which are descriptive summaries of the game with little depth and a bit of opinion mixed in rather than full-fledged reviews.
   • Same goes for the lead summary of the reception, which says Reviewers noted based on comments which are each from a single reviewer.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

   This is a bit of a challenge for me. On one hand, our coverage should be based on what RSes say, and they don't really go into all that much more detail from what has been written here (the subject itself being teetering on the edge of notability).
   But even then, the article barely covers several aspects of the game, with the description of the gameplay lacking depth and the reception section not really being substantial, especially if the other issues I have pointed out are rectified. Based on the limited depth of the sources available, I'm not sure if GA is even possible for this subject unfortunately.
   There's also a few other issues as well:

   • Multiple sources state the game is short, being completable in around 20 minutes (having played it myself, this is indeed true). This seems like quite an important aspect and I feel this warrants a mention.
   • I would not call He found the game's monochrome-style pixel art and animated cutscenes to be its notable aspect. The story was commented by Game Informer as having a lo-fi aesthetic. reception, but rather a description of certain aspects of the game. Additionally, Reviewers commended Fox's music hinges on three cursory adjectives in the cited articles, which is far from ideal.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Pretty clearly stable apart from expansion by the nominee.

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):

   Standard image usage for VG infoboxes, abides by WP:NFCC etc. An additional screenshot would be nice but by my interpretation of the GA criteria it isn't required.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Thanks for nominating this, but although there are a few things that are fixable, the primary issue is that the topic is simply not covered broadly as is required for a GA. As far as I can tell, this is unlikely to change as there aren't many other substantial sources that exist. ― novov (t c) 09:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)