Talk:Ether One/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 03:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• The lead is too short. It need to be significantly expanded per WP:LEADLENGTH
• The lead has one citation for uncontroversial information. Move it somewhere else per WP:LEADCITE
• That is a well-written little plot section. Well done
• The gameplay section is under-developed. It needs to be significantly expanded. Information like what kind of puzzles players would encounter, what game mechanics are there, how players interact with the world, should be there. After reading it, I still know nothing about the game's gameplay.
• The gameplay screenshot is placed in a wrong position
• You should paraphrase and reword the quote from Pete Bottomley.
• What about other game design? How puzzles were developed, why they choose the topic "dementia". What about the game's soundtrack? When the development of this game began?
• The game was released both digitally and on Blu-ray Disc. - One-sentence paragraph is not encouraged
• Ether One has received largely positive reviews from critics. - Not really "largely" positive reviews
• S. Prell of Joystiq praised the environment, writing that the uninhabited dreamscapes feel "almost haunted; there is a constant, pervasive feeling that something is not right here". - What is S. Prell's first name?
• It is not IGN and or PC Gamer that thought the game was something. It is the reviewers that said these things.
• The reception section had too much quotes.
• PC Gamer should be italicized
• Citations are fine, though it needs some wikilinking.
• Having an external link to the game's official website would be nice.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list corporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Good to see someone working on this interesting independent game. While the article is well-written, it is too basic, and does not cover the game in a comprehensive way. The over-simplistic gameplay and development section, as well as the excessive use of quotes in the article prevented it from promoting to a good article. It is getting there, it only needs more expansion. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing. I'll take a look at those points and get back to you. StewdioMACK (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer: I've taken a look at your points and I've also added some more info. It's not completely up-to-par; I'm still working on the lead and gameplay sections, but I just thought I'd give you an update. StewdioMACK (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@StewdioMACK: Can I get another update? AdrianGamer (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Since there is no activity on this page, and the nominator did not reply, I am closing this review now. Feel free to re-nominate the article when you have fixed all the issues, and I will be happy to review it again.