Talk:Quick time event/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RJaguar3 | u | t 01:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"A quick time event (QTE) is a method of context-sensitive gameplay used in video games, in which the player performs actions on the control device shortly after the appearance of an on-screen prompt" could be clarified; it is unclear what "in which" refers to. I would suggest "In video games, a quick time event (QTE) is a method of context-sensitive gameplay where the player performs actions on the control device in response to an on-screen prompt." "QTEs generally involves the player following onscreen prompts to press buttons or manipulate joysticks within a limited amount of time." (singular-plural agreement issue) "They allow for the game designer to create sequences of actions that either cannot be performed or would be too difficult to be performed with the game's standard scheme." (dangling modifier) "the general use of QTE has become panned by journalists and players alike" (was it not originally panned, or has it been panned more in recent years? if not, I don't think "become" is the right verb) "Die Hard Arcade (Sega, 1996) and most notably Shenmue (Sega, 1999) whose director Yu Suzuki coined the Quick Time Event term" - here "Quick time event" is italicized, while in the lead, it appears in quotation marks; choose a style and be consistent with it. Also, choose one of "quick time event" or QTE to use consistently through the article, and also be consistent about the plural of the abbreviation QTE. This article could definitely use a copy-edit for clarity, consistency, and precision.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: looks fine, good length for 10000 character article Layout: good Words to watch: There are instances of weasel words, such as "While some uses of QTE have been considered as favorable additions to gameplay, the general use of QTE has become panned by journalists and players alike" (who panned quick-time events), "Such uses were also seen as giving the player only the illusion of control" (by whom?), "The use of QTE within Shenmue is often praised" (by whom?), "sections which utilized the QTE were considered 'some of the most thrilling in the whole game'" (same), "they also are considered to be a weak addition to gameplay" (by whom?), "They are often considered a 'bane of action games'" (by whom?), "While this example is considered to use QTEs effectively" (who considers it effective?), "This sequence is critically panned" (by whom?). It would be good to include reputable journalists or organizations to support the claims made in the article in-text (such as "Joe Blow from Gamasutra said that quick time events are a 'terrible, terrible mechanic game designers should never use.'") Also, there is a peacock term that needs to be attributed or removed: "A renowned example of this type of QTE is a knife battle in the game Resident Evil 4." Fiction: good Lists: good
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References look fine and reliable.
	2b. 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).	Currently, controversial statements appear to meet the standard. However, when the weasel-y opinions I pointed out in criterion 1 are attributed, those opinions will need citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	At the end of the History section, what criteria are used to determine which video game titles belong on the list of "higher profile titles that focused on [quick time events]"? This sentence just seems to be a magnet for editors to come and add every single game using quick time events, so it would be good add some stated criteria or simply delete the sentence.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No glaring omissions in aspects of quick time events that need to be covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	A short and sweet article. Detailed descriptions of games whose use of quick time events has been critically analyzed (Dragon's Lair, Shenmue) are appropriate at the current length they are given in the article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This article does address both the critical positives and negatives of quick time events. However, I'm not sure whether some reviews or sources are given undue weight. Is any old Flash game parodying the use of a certain quick time event really worth mentioning?
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Shenmue quicktimeevent.jpg, the lead image, does not even have an NFUR for the image's use in this article. File:Heavy rain move.jpg has a NFUR for this article, but it fails to address why the image could not be replaced by a free mock-up of a quick time event (perhaps involving motion controls). The NFUR also fails to show why such a replacement would be so detrimental to the encyclopedic quality of the article that the proposed free image could not replace the non-free one currently used. File:Yu suzuki gdc 2011 cropped.jpg is free and tagged, so that image is fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions look fine to me. I don't see any need for additional images (except for free replacements of the non-free ones currently in use).
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Placing review on hold to address concerns raised. This article was reviewed March 16, 2011; it will be reassessed seven days from now, on March 23, 2011 RJaguar3 | u | t 17:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be two points to focus on here (I've tried to address the rest wrt to the same case-structure, fixing rationales). On the weasel-word statements, all of these (except for those in the lead, which I'm leaving unsourced as it is a summary) are followed immediately by the ref to support that statement. Are you looking for something different here?

On the images, I probably would agree that a mock-up image (possibly replicating the situation in the Shenmue picture by using free images of Wikipe-tan and a soccer ball) would help. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Mock up of a QTE from free elements has been created. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on that. It looks like criterion 6 is now satisfied. Regarding weasel words, I believe that the MoS advises for in-text attribution, such as "John Doe, writing for IGN, said that..." That is, a name should be attached in-text to each statement that currently uses the passive voice ("is generally considered" and the like). See WP:WEASEL for more about this. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Fail

After re-examining the article, the article still fails to meet criterion 1b, so I will fail the article for now. Once the article has been improved to meet the good article criteria, you are more than free to renominate. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)