Jump to content

Talk:Innsmouth no Yakata/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Namcokid47 (talk · contribs) 16:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Will get to this soon once I wrap up my draft for Final Blaster. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 16:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Planet Virtual Boy is not a reliable source and needs to be replaced.
    • Removed
  • Not sure why the Famitsu score is part of the Reception paragraph. Should be put into a review table.
    • Fixed
  • Lots of bits in the Gameplay section are not sourced.
    • The sources used in the gameplay section cover everything.
  • Who is "they" in the Gameplay? Does it mean the player? Since this game appears to be single-player only, the article shouldn't have "players" or "they" in it.
    • The they refers to players playing it, and in my experience player or players is acceptable, it is just a matter of personal opinion.
  • "The game features 45 levels, but a run will only have a selection of 13 of those, which are selected based on how quickly players complete them; if they finish in the first 30 seconds, they go up, and if in the last 30 seconds, they go down." I'm really confused to what this means. What does it mean to "go up" and "go down", does it mean you go into the next room or something?
    • Clarified
  • "though it never released" should be "thought it was never released".
    • Removed
  • "It was inspired by the H.P. Lovecraft novel The Shadow over Innsmouth. In spite of this, the only similarity between the two is the presence of fish monsters" This part, to me at least, reads awkwardly. I think this should be changed to something like "The game was inspired by the H.P. Lovecraft novel The Shadow over Innsmouth, however the only similarity to it is the presence of fish-like monsters."
    • Fixed
  • The Reception section likely needs to be rewritten. The comments made by reviewers should be weaved together into sentences, not just listed one by one like this article does. I also think the retrospective reviews, such as the one by Jeremy Perish, should be placed towards the end, since it makes it sound like they reviewed the game when it was first released.
    • Did a bit of cleanup to create greater cohesion. That said, the article is mostly covered in retrospective sources; none of the sources after Parish were reviews from the time of release.

I'm pretty disappointed with this, as the quality of the page seems to be a lot more downgraded compared to your other GAs — lots of issues regarding the gameplay and reception sections. Nonetheless I'll put this on hold and let you try and fix these in the meantime. Ping me when you're ready and I'll give it another look. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a reviewer but Planet Virtual Boy has some magazine materials in regards to the game. I don't remember right now where I saw it but Innsmouth no Yakata was indeed being planned to be published in North America by Acclaim. I may have to look for it... Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does have a sizable list of reviews for this game, but the only ones that appear to be reliable are Famitsu and VB Guide 2 (although the latter has a dead link). The Nintendo Life review is written by a user and not site staff, so it can't be used. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 22:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed. @Namcokid47: - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 04:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abryn: Still a few issues with it.

  • "though this is not confirmed" -> "although this hasn't been confirmed".
    • Fixed
  • The Shadow over Innsmouth needs a link.
    • Fixed
  • What did Famitsu have to say about the game? Per Template:Video game reviews, all reviews in the table need to also be sourced within the text. I can understand it might be difficult since it's in Japanese, but it should still be somewhere in the text.
    • Removed Famitsu mention
  • The reception area as a whole is still pretty mucky. It's a bit better than before, but it's still just a list of comments made by reviewers - that's not how they should be written. Comments need to be woven into sentences, for instance: "Nintendo Magazine said [x], while Famitsu said [x]."
    • I'm not really sure what sentences can be combined; I agree that weaving these things together is a good idea, but a lot of the retrospective reviews do not really jive well. I tried combining the HG101/Parish sections.
  • Not sure what you mean by "The sources used in the gameplay section cover everything.", because it doesn't. Much of it is still unsourced.
    • Clarified, the first set of sentences are attributed to 1, then the next to 2, and then everything else to 1.

btw I did manage to find a working URL for the VB Guide review, shown here. The article itself is looking better, but still needs a lot more work. Ping me again when you're done. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abryn: Haven't seem much activity on this in a while. Do you still plan to nominate this? Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your last points, I'm not sure what you mean. I've been waiting for a response as it were. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Namcokid47: - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Abryn: I was able to translate the reviews provided by Famitsu and VB Guide, and I added them to the article. The reception area I am still seeing errors with - prior to my edit it was really confusing to have the retrospective reviews first as it made it sound like those publications covered it when it was first released. Anyway:
    • "while Benji Edwards for PC Magazine found its difficulty and Lovecraftian setting worth trying despite not thinking of it as a good game" - This sentence confuses me, and it isn't written properly. What did he not like about it (if he wrote about it)? Could that be added to the article? It also makes it sound like its difficulty and Lovecraftian setting itself were worth trying, rather than the game itself. A better way to put it is "the difficulty and setting made the game worth trying".
      • Fixed. He does not specify his issues, just follows the statement with examples of what's interesting about it. I did make the mistake of misreading great as good though.
    • "Parish found it to be unlike any other game" -> "Parish found it to be unlike any other title for the system". Makes it sound like it isn't like any other game ever made.
      • Parish doesn't specify Virtual Boy, and pretty evidently says that it's a unique game in the medium. I should note that he says "almost" though.
    • "It was noted for its ambition by Anthony John Agnello for The A.V. Club" - the word noted shouldn't be used for the opinions of reviewers, only for facts. The game having "ambition" isn't a fact, it's an opinion.
      • Fixed, though I will note that being noted doesn't mean it's a fact; for instance, the definition's example talks about high standards, which would be a subjective determination (a well-founded one, but subjective nonetheless).
  • Famitsu and VB Guide were rather critical of the game too, so the lead needs to be updated to reflect that. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abryn: considering that it's been two weeks with zero activity on this page since my last comment, and that the reception area is still of rather mixed to poor quality, for the time being I'm going to fail this nomination. In the meantime, I'd try reading the receptions of pages such as Bangai-O and Radiant Silvergun as they do a good job summarizing comments by reviewers and weave them into sentences rather well (plus both are at GA status already). You're more than welcome to nominate this again when you feel it is ready. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 23:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

!? I responded to everything you said and implemented it where appropriate! I've been waiting weeks for you to respond, and previously have had to ping you to get you to respond to previous comments. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and I'm a little bothered that I had to wait weeks for you to not bother to reply to what I said. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Namcokid47:
Hold the phone, what do you mean by "not responding to your comments"? I've responded to each of your comments and concerns regarding the article. I've told you a number of times the reception section for video game articles cannot just be a laundry list of random comments reviewers made but rather have them woven together into sentences and to group them together. Innsmouth no Yakata doesn't do that, which I've tried to tell you many times throughout the GAN. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 01:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed that there has been zero activity on this page since your last comment, which is immediately verifiable as untrue. Also, the Reception section absolutely categorizes them. The Reception section consists of two paragraphs - one for contemporary reviews and one for retrospective. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I was like a day off. That doesn't change the fact the article has seen practically zero activity until you just now started editing it again. The Reception area also does not weave comments by reviewers together, which I've told you at least five or so times at this point. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 01:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article the day after you made the comments though. I've been waiting for further comment from you. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Innsmouth_no_Yakata/GA1&oldid=1182475527"