Talk:Another World (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FJ 1 (talk · contribs) 08:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this article. FJ 1 (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The are a few grammar mistakes. I suggest doing the following changes: "re-load" -> "reload", "but it does include" -> "but it includes", "Flashback does seem" -> "Flashback seems". I see it is fixed; now it seems OK. FJ 1 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   In my opinion, CyberRoach is a weak source. It doesn't provide any direct information about the Atari Jaguar's port. GPATemp is a message board and shouldn't be used. Megidish.net is also a questionable source. These sources are now deleted FJ 1 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC) The sources providing to magazines are imprecise (no site numbers), as well as the source providing to the manual. (Sorry, there's no need of precising them for GA FJ 1 (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)). I found the lack of sources in the following sections: the overall 15th Anniversary re-release/ (It's OK now. FJ 1 (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)); too few in Legacy (maybe a source for this sentence: "Flashback… is often mistaken as a sequel to Another World because of similar gameplay and graphics."?); and lack of any sources in the Gameplay section. I would be also grateful if you can put the citations in the cite templates (but it's not necessary). It's much improved now FJ 1 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC) The content doesn't also explain the following sentence of the lead: "Another World was highly innovative in its use of cinematic effects in the graphics, sound and cut scenes, with characters communicating through their facial features, gestures and actions only." The sentence seems reorganized. FJ 1 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I don't think the list of unofficial ports is necessary for the article about video game in Wikipedia. I see the list is more precise and reduced to authorized ports. OK. FJ 1 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There are unsourced, unneutral wordings such as "This cinematic style granted it a cult status amongst critics and fans", "The digital rights management on the 15th Anniversary Edition CD-ROM is particularly draconian". The sentences are now smoothed. FJ 1 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I removed a hell of repeating refs after every single sentence and now they're only sourcing whole paragraphs, unless another ref is used in-between. --Niemti (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I see that you have done much improvement, but the Gameplay section still remains unsourced, and some references to the printed sources are still imprecise, too (I revert the latter, there is no need for GA FJ 1 (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)). FJ 1 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• After the second look, I see the article much improved. I have no further comments, so I pass the article. Good job! FJ 1 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)