Talk:Metroid: Other M/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

The groundwork is there, but the article suffers from several problems that prevent its promotion to the good article status.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Gameplay contains several consecutive uses of the words player/playing/play which should be replaced by synonyms. "Third-person" and "first-person" are hyphenated inconsistently across the article. "GF" should be included in parentheses after the first use of "Galactic Federation". "Baby's Cry," fails WP:COMMA, as do other quotes further down. "who claims to be Madeline hiding from her family" sounds a little weird. "Hayashi described working in the game" should be "Hayashi described working on the game". "you don't have the same distractions when you want to give them story sequences" comes a bit too sudden (try to use indirect speech here). "When questioned if Other M would be too similar to Ninja Gaiden, Yosuke Hayashi responded that while the new game will feature heavy action-based sequences, there will still be the exploration-based sequences characteristic of other Metroid games. Yoshio Sakamoto confirmed that Other M will feature story progression in the same manner as Metroid Fusion." is written in future tense although the game is out already. "Sakamoto states at the end" (what end?). Six sentences in a row begin with "Sakamoto". "and Sakamoto intended to cutscenes to give emotional depth" should be "and Sakamoto intended the cutscenes to give emotional depth". "Production had a really large scale" does not give off an encyclopedic tone. "the motion capture had also the involvement of a professional cameraman" again sounds weird. I don't understand what is meant by "and Samus' face had a more detailed frame to make expressions more lifelike". Reception uses the words "praise" and "criticize" too often, there should be more variation. "%" should be "percent" in prose. These are some of the problems here, but this point will have to be reviewed anyway once the article has been expanded sufficiently.

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

   Not a biggie, but the infobox should not contain references for people credited in the game's staff roll (Sakamoto as writer and Haishima as composer). What's more important is that the lead does not summarize the article well enough: The summary of the gameplay, plot and reception sections should be expanded – the lead section can easily be three paragraphs here. Again, look at what has to be expanded in the article itself before you work on the lead (see criterion 3A).

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Skimming through the sources, most of them seem to be okay, but these are criteria that will have to be reassessed as well. Synopsis in particular would profit from some in-game quotes using the template {{cite video game}}.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Names and terms are thrown at the reader without any prior explanation, e.g. Sakamoto in the lead section or morph ball under Gameplay. Gameplay does not mention that it is an action-adventure game (included in the lead), and the general objective and gameplay basics are missing (see for example Metroid Prime on what should be in here). The term "spawn point" needs to be explained more, or a better example has to be found, or that point has to be dropped. The last paragraph with the two-hour film might fit Development better. Synopsis does not provide enough context to understand the story: The science fiction background needs to be mentioned, Samus' character has to be introduced, a brief explanation of the Galactic Federation would be good as well. Ridley, Queen Metroid, etc. are not self-explanatory. There is no reason given for the detachment of Sector Zero. "the truth about the android she found earlier" is not clear enough to identify the earlier girl (who claimed to be Madeline Bergmann) as MB. Also, MB's purpose is left in the shadows, and "similar to the one Samus had with the Metroid baby" is not helpful to readers who do not know what happened between them (this can be given a short mention in the first sentence). Adam's death is not mentioned either, so the whole paragraph on Samus retrieving his helmet makes no sense to readers. Also, this paragraph can be cut down to a single sentence, with Phantoon not mentioned (this is not the main plot point). In Development, the comments on how the game was intended to be can be removed from the last paragraph as that is explained above already. Reception suffers from the fact that it's mostly just a summary of review scores (suited better for the Vgreviews template) with some positive and negative aspects mentioned. Why is/are the gameplay/graphics/music/voice acting/plot considered good/bad? Try to focus on specific aspects and to explain how they were received by various critics (look at recently promoted featured and good articles to get a feel for it). Some of the direct quotes here are not terribly meaningful either ("The unlikeliest of developers has created a game that manages to encapsulate huge chunks of the series' traditions, even as it pushes it onwards in a slick new direction."; "Nintendo gambled once with the Metroid series, and that gave us the fantastic Prime series... Nintendo once again gambled with Metroid, and Team Ninja was their choice. I like that Nintendo takes risks, but this time they've run out on their luck.").

   B. Focused:

   "volcanic area with temperatures that Adam authorizes Samus to use the Varia Feature to survive in" (unnecessary detail on game progression); "After escaping the exploding Planet Zebes, Samus Aran awakens on a Galactic Federation ship." (sentence is included, but Samus' actions on the ship are not described, thus of questionable relevance); "purple tentacle-monster known as a Brug Mass, which is composed of many small Brugs, and a large Emperor Brug" (unnecessary details on the enemy); "Samus facing a large lava creature, Vorash, in first-person perspective." (name of the enemy not necessary in the caption).

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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   As it currently stands, the article cannot be passed. The most important thing to work on here are the major aspects that should be covered: Try to rewrite Gameplay and Synopsis from the viewpoint of someone who has never played a game in the series (with Synopsis also explaining more of the important plot points). For Reception, concentrate on specific aspects of the game and then describe the opinion of several critics on them, explaining what they thought was good and bad about them. If you're done with that, try to correct the flaws of the prose mentioned under 1A, then rewrite the lead. Then check if everything in the article is sourced appropriately, and renominate. If these problems are fixed, I see no reason why the article wouldn't be passed in the next review. :-) Good luck!

Reviewer: Prime Blue (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)