Talk:Solaris (video game)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Ghosts of Europa (talk · contribs) Hello! I'm looking forward to reviewing this. 06:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Hi Andrzejbanas! Most of these criteria look good:

The article is neutral, focused, and stable. It provides good background on the Atari 2600 and the game's creation without going into excess detail.
No copyvio concerns from Earwig.
The images all have permissive licenses, other than the cover art and the gameplay video. The cover art is Fair Use. For the gameplay video, I'm not an expert, but I agree with the Fair Use rationale that it provides vital context for the game's reception. I didn't appreciate what the reviews were talking about until I saw it, and when I did I was extremely impressed!
I checked the online sources and some of the print magazines I could find copies of online (Retro Gamer, The Video Game Update). All the citations I checked look good. AGF for the remaining print sources.
- I don't love citing the game manual and the Atari 50 re-release, since those aren't neutral or independent. That said, it doesn't seem like they're supporting anything controversial, and the Retro Gamer article provides enough gameplay detail that the manual doesn't carry that section. I think it would be better to replace those sources with independent ones if you can find them, but I also don't think it's a dealbreaker for GA.
- One small note: it doesn't look like you use the Matt Barton source.

Unfortunately, despite meeting most of the criteria, I don't think I can pass this in its current state. The article needs a thorough copy-edit, and I think the Gameplay section in particular needs a substantial rewrite. For example:

Following the new re-arrangements with management with Atari - This implies that I should know what "the new re-arrangements" were, but they haven't been mentioned yet.

Tried to clarify that. I think this part was initially not expanded upon in the article, so it has been expanded upon since. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solaris was re-released various versions compilations formats - "in various versions, compilations, and formats"?

Oh dear. this doesn't bode well. Re-phrased this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the player must destroy the Zylon ships until they all of them are defeated - "they" is out of place, and this seems redundant. Why not "destroy all the Zylon ships"?

Much better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solaris was made with 16K of bank-switching RAM and 256 bytes of RAM - Shouldn't this be 16K of ROM, per the Gamasutra source?

It should. Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To do this, they must navigate the galactic scanner to explore quadrants in space which leads to either battling enemy Zylon ships in both space or on their occupied planets and visit federation planets to refuel. - I can't parse this sentence. Is this trying to say there are two activities: (Battling Zylon ships in (space or occupied planets)) and (visiting planets to refuel)?

Yes. Tried to re-phrase

the player controls the surface of the planet shooting aliens and rescuing humans and docking at refueling stations - I don't understand what the player is controlling here. Does the surface of the planet dock at refueling stations?

Re-phrased. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federation planets appear with docking stations to refuel the spaceship. If they are invaded by Zylons, the player must shoot all the Zylons on the planet to rescue it. If they miss any of them, they will have to retry. - Is "it" the spaceship, or the planet? Are "they" the planets, or multiple docking stations on a single planet? Does "they miss any of them" mean the player misses the Zylons, or the Zylons miss the docking stations (or the planets)?

Re-phrased. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also feature corridors protected by guardians. Once inside, the player must fly over a key to ensure safe passage through it, leading for the Zylon planet to explode - Is "it" the corridor, or the key? Is the player ensuring safe passage for others (e.g. the guardians), or for themselves?

Tried re-phrasing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading the article out loud, asking someone else to read it, reading the sentences backwards, or otherwise breaking yourself out of the autopilot where your brain already "knows" what the article's trying to say. This article has a solid foundation, but right now it's too difficult to read and understand.

Sorry if this is a disappointing review. Let me know once you've had a chance to clean up the prose, and I'll be happy to take another look! Ghosts of Europa (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! @Ghosts of Europa:! This isn't a disappointing review at all! I appreciate you doing it. I'll definitely tackle the prose, but might not be able to try to give it a serious look until Tuesday evening if that's ok. I'll ping if you when I've done it or have any questions. (great work btw on the early soviet cinema articles!) Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas Congrats on the GAR so far! I just wanted to let you know I went ahead and did some copyediting to hopefully help resolve some of the concerns. I noticed there was some typos and the tone seems to be a bit informal in places so I tried to clean it up. Forgive me if I misinterpreted any of the points, and of course feel free to correct me. Regardless, hope this helps. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I did notice some changes quickly and as like "huh, did I write this?" :) I'm going to do a pinch more then tag Ghosts and see if we are good. Thank you for your work though! Much appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and I'll also help out here and there when needed. :) -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done what I can before I need to call it bedtime tonight, if you want to do some more edits @Dcdiehardfan be my guest. I'll try to re-read it again tomorrow and then ask GOE if it alright. Feel free to ask me anything if some things don't make any sense. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas Sounds good. I'll go ahead and take a look at the article and see if I can spruce up the prose here and there, but it's already looking great. I'm also about to call it a day so I understand it all too well. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghosts of Europa:, I've gone through with @Dcdiehardfan: and did some copy-editing. I can't speak for DC, but I feel the article is in much better shape now. Unless DC says otherwise, I think it could use your reviewer eyes to see what else is needed (if anything) for your review. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas I also definitely agree that the prose is in much better shape. There are a few more things I think that should be cleared up however.

Clarify what "Federation" means, I assume it's probably related to the game plot, but feel that it should be introduced for the general audience who may not be familiar with the game at all

The manual is a bit iffy on what is what. It has been documented here: at AtariAge, a site Atari owns. As Neubauer says in the prose, the manual isn't great, and the storyline seems a bit iffy on details that aren't really explained in the game. Not sure what I could take from thisAndrzejbanas (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Development, since you already clarified Star Raiders was released in 1980, I think you can eliminate the 1980 in Mike Bevan wrote in Retro Gamer that fans of Neubauer's game Star Raiders (1980), and also I think there's a slight inconsistency with Atari 2006 box art of Star Raiders (1982).

I think with this i'm just trying to clarify which Star Raiders we are talking about. There is the Atari 8-bit line, which Neubauer made and was released in 1980, and the port for the Atari 2600, which he wasn't involved with and has a different cover. Maybe the 1982 year there is a bit confusing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the image caption for Randy Emberlin, decapitalize "Inker" to inker.

Agreed. done. I saw @Ghosts of Europa: do some copy more copy editing, so I'll look forward to more comments from both them and you @Dcdiehardfan:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is in much better shape now. Thanks to both of you for your work on this! Ghosts of Europa (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.