Talk:Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A decent article, but held back by the need for some expansion before it can be ranked as a good article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
All fine here, though I'm not particularly fond of using lingo like "MacGuffin" when I'm sure less specialised language could be used for readers that aren't familiar with the terms. However, I'll need to reassess the prose later, as we're going to need to add to it to get to GA.
Still good after expansion.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
> The lead section does not do a good job of summarising the article. Its far too short and doesn't provide anything in regards to the reception and most of the development bar platform information, and only piecemeal stuff for plot. Ideally, this needs to be two to three paragraphs, giving a concise summary of what is to follow in each section. I'll use the FA Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, a similarly aged game by the same company, as an example of how the lead section should look.
> World War II, Soviet Union and Babylon should all be linked at their first use, which are in the lead section, rather than the second use later on in the plot section.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
The Metacritic link is 404.
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
I can't pass the article with the reception section as it is. Its simply too short, lacks depth and is ultimately not very comprehensive. GameRankings shows a good number of reviews, enough to create something more indepth than what we have here. Again, I'd point to Star Wars: Rogue Squadron as a good example of what to pursue here. A few paragraphs with some closer analysis of how aspects of the game were received would go a long way to strengthening the article.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
At a native screen size of 640 × 480, File:Infernalmachinepalawanvolcano.png doesn't really qualify as low resolution version of the original. It needs to be reduced in size. Same deal for File:Infernalmachinemeroeconceptart.jpg, knock it down in size a bit.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
> The caption for File:Infernalmachinepalawanvolcano.png in the article is a bit... wishy-washy. It only provides a sort of in-universe description of the screenshot. The reason for usage is "to depict the game's graphical style and gameplay elements [, highlighting] distinct features such as the camera system, polygonal models and texturing", yet the caption itself doesn't provide insight into any of this. It should note for the reader to look in the image for these distinct features, or reinforce a point made in the development section, or point out visual aspects that were praised in reviews, etc.
> Same sort of problem is present with File:Infernalmachinemeroeconceptart.jpg though its not as bad as the caption is linking in with stuff the brief bit on Bill Tiller in the development section and as a result is more relevant to the overall article. I won't hold you to changing this one, and but elaboration as to why this piece of art is noteworthy wouldn't go amiss.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
These issues aren't major, though they will require substantial work. I'm placing the article on hold for the moment, good luck with improving it. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask.
I'd also note that the GA nomination of Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis contains a lot of similar issues (ie, lead, captions and reception—accepting that Fate of Atlantis has significantly less review sources to work with), you might want to consider applying this there as well.
- Pass or Fail:
Reviewer: Sabre (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I scaled down the images, but could you point me to a specific guideline for their size? What I basically did was look at a few featured articles (e.g. 1080° Snowboarding, Halo 2, Kingdom Hearts II), and they had several 640x480 screenshots etc. That's why I thought they were allowed. Prime Blue (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that there is a specific guideline on how to choose size (it all falls under WP:NFCC 3b, but I'm working on the basis that 640 x 480 is likely one of the native resolutions for the game, therefore any screenshots of it should be smaller than that for NFCC purposes. There is a case put forward by some that non-free screenshots don't need to be any bigger than as used in the article, but I think that's a little extreme. -- Sabre (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I think I have addressed the issues mentioned above. I used the term "MacGuffin" further down in the article to avoid repeating "plot device" in two sentences immediately following each other. I swapped the uses now so that "plot device" comes first. That way, it should be easier to understand for readers as "MacGuffin" is not simply "thrown at them" anymore without any context. Prime Blue (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, its looking far stronger now. Good work, and have a GA pass! -- Sabre (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)