Jump to content

Talk:Tin Star (video game)

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

GA Review

[edit]
Article failed

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tin Star (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 10:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

[edit]
[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]

General

[edit]

Tin Star was received positively by reviewers. It was considered a fun game that was suitable for younger players.<ref name="GameProts"/><ref name = "Associated Press"/> It was considered unique from other shoot 'em up titles for its comic nature, cartoon graphics.<ref name="TDE"/><ref name="C+ts"/> The game's quick draw bosses drew particular praise, which Última Generación declared the best all-time aspect of games in the genre.<ref name = "Ultima"/> Critics were positive about the games "perfect control"<ref name="Associated Press"></ref> and ability to modify both cursor speed and difficulty.<ref name="TDE"/>

Computer and Video Games called it the best game to use the Super Scope,<ref name="CVGts"/> while critics from GamePro and Total! claimed it was easiest to play with the Super Scope and Mouse.<ref name = "Total"/><ref name="GameProts"/> The graphics were praised and called the "best on the SNES".[according to whom?]<ref name = "Associated Press"/><ref name = "Total"/> The graphics were were noted for their varied styles,<ref name = "SuperGamePower"/> colorfulness,[1]</nowiki> jocularity,<ref name="TDE"/> and attention to detail.[2]</nowiki> The music and sound effects were praised for capturing a wild west aesthetic,<ref name = "Total"/><ref name="TDE"/> and the humor and story was enjoyed by some but not all critics.<ref name="NPts"/><ref name="CVGts"/><ref name="GPts"/>

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

[edit]
  • I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, it looks like we are quite a ways apart from our opinions on how close this article is to GA. I am going to fail for now. Feel free to fix up the article and renominate the article when you are happy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lee Vilenski: Whoa! Whoa! Not even an hour of a day has gone by. Shouldn't you wait until seven days to fail it? I haven't even responded to the example of how you want the reception section. You haven't even responded to some of my responses!!!! HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lee Vilenski: How about we have more discussion on the problems so we can reach that conclusion instead of abruptly ending the nominated? Yes, I am supposed to fix problems when comments arise revealing those, but the nominator also should make clarifications and bring up when the nominator's wrong too. HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it is very clear that this isn't going to get to a reasonable standard from your responses. Feel free to get a new reviewer Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Lee Vilenski: I'll leave this article alone for now, but I don't understand how a user that's reviewed more than 100 GA nominations and has 12 featured articles to his name presents this lack of understanding towards the article he's reading and WP policies. I'll admit your comments did ring a bell that I needed to clarify the prose a little, but some of your comments were either obviously false, a misunderstanding of what's trivial and what isn't, or could've used more knowledge of the manual of style for video games. Additionally (and if you'd let the review keep going I would've been able to respond with specifics), your example of the reception section only made parts of it more inaccurate. I would ask that you'd take a bit of a break from reviewing given the overwhelming amounts of nominations your reviewing. HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't ping me again. This article is not suitable for GA in this state. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 March 2021 (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.

I would like to give you credit for this review at the backlog drive, but I don't see it stated clearly which criteria the article did not meet, in your opinion. Some of the disagreements, such as citing more than three sources in a row or putting citations in the middle of a sentence, are not part of the GA criteria and can't be the basis for failing a review. (t · c) buidhe 20:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe - I didn't think it was particularly well written (criteria 1a, 1b). I also didn't think it met 3a, due to a lack of release section and quite a real lack of details on the development and in-depth gameplay for the game. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear in the review itself. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference GameProts was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference TDE was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tin_Star_(video_game)&oldid=1203739195"