Talk:Vainglory (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I reviewed a good article. Should have this to you within a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

"Vainglory is a multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) video game by Super Evil Megacorp for iOS" - would be worth mentioning that it was both developed and published by Super Evil Megacorp rather than just "by"? It's just the norm of VG articles, but I wouldn't mind if you preferred to keep this in
"Designed for mobile platforms" - it's not really a wide range if it's only for iOS systems?

Is the game considered a "technology demonstration"? In comparison to how Jumping Flash! was one for the PlayStation in 1995, by the sound of it Vainglory sounds very similar, showcasing the Metal graphics

"Off the path" - would Outside the path sound more similar to the game's mechanics?
The reception paragraph in the lead could be expanded a little to better summarize it. Why did critics/reviewers disagree on its degree of accessibility to newcomers?
"en route to destroy the crystalline Vain in the enemy's base" - what is the Vain?
"The game has both single-[1] and triple-lane maps" - why is there a hyphen there?
Did the game win any awards?
These two things contradict themselves: in the lead reviewers "disagreed on the game's degree of accessibility to newcomers" whilst in the reception section itself it says "IGN's Mitch Dyer wrote the game was accessible to newcomers"? Furthermore, "Matt Thrower of Pocket Gamer felt otherwise" - how so?
"Those who win the Kraken usually win the match" - does this make the Karken a 'boss', if you like?
"The game received "generally favorable" reviews" - why is "generally favorable" in quotations? Just curious, as I always write it without the quotations.. Also the quotations aren't in the lead

References

Toolserver picks up no dead links here

On hold

I'm happy I reviewed an article like this for a change, it's like a breath of fresh air! The game does look good, personally, kind of makes me want to get an Apple device. I trust you can handle those issues, otherwise this is on hold @Czar: ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar, thanks for the review! I prefer the "by" (for brevity) over "developed and published", partly because publishing doesn't quite work the same way on iOS as opposed to the console game model. Not sure what you mean by "wide range" but the game was designed for mobile devices, though it's only on iOS for now. I haven't found sources that call the game a technical demo just to show it off (I'm thinking of Epic Citadel as a better example of that). "Off the path" should be okay to keep the simple metaphor in the lede. I can expand the lede reception summary if it would be useful, but I prefer to keep to broad strokes in the lede and relegate the specifics to the proper part of the prose. The Vain is the objective in the enemy base (clarified). The dash after single is because it's single-lane and triple-lane without repeating "lane" twice. Nope, no awards (at least yet—I'd note that League had no real awards or good ratings in its first year). Found a Guardian mention, though, so good tip. Not sure what you mean about the contradiction since the lede says reviewers did not agree and the Reception says the IGN and Pocket Gamer editors disagreed. As for "how so", it's elaborated in Pocket Gamer's section (last ¶). Kraken's a little like a boss in that it's super powerful, but the previous sentence explains exactly what it is and how it's recruited. "Generally favorable" is a direct quote from the Metacritic site. I prefer to use their language so it's not original research when I summarize. For the lede, it's already quoted in the appropriate section (Reception) so I feel it's okay to describe the Reception as such without mentioning Metacritic's vetting. Anyone interested can scroll down to the right section and that's the purpose of the lede, right? (By the way, for the ping to work, you have to sign with four tildes in the same post, so I didn't get that ping. Yes, it's strange.) czar ⨹ 01:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: so that's why it didn't work, thanks for telling me! I also noticed that you didn't get the GAN notification on your talk page, but glad you saw this in time. Regarding the lead, you're right about the most part, but section 1.b of the GA criteria (and WP:LEAD) offers the advice of the lead acting as a "mini article", though some topics vary. It's a guideline I always follow, but seeing as this lead summarises everything adequately, there shouldn't be much of a problem here. If you plan on FACing this, I would expand anything if possible and add more references, but right now this meets the GA criteria. Promoting

☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]