Talk:In Stars and Time/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Mir Novov (talk · contribs) 08:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 20:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one on. Looks like you've really fleshed out a short indie game article to completion. Will review soon. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

All done. Great work @Mir Novov:! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Review

Does the article conform to the general standards of WP:VG articles including the WP:VG/MOS? Y Perfect, no issues with article structure.

Is the article generally well-written? Y Yes, no major issues.

Is the article broad enough in its coverage and contains reliable sourcing? Y Seems to be! Great work on focusing the sourcing on WP:VG/S. I accept the Lits Play interview is a useful primary source and likely reliable on the basis of its association with a major literary publisher.

• You could add in one additional source I found Rock Paper Shotgun.

 Done, given Castle is decidedly more negative on the game than most reviewers so it provides good coverage of different opinions. There’s actually a whole bunch of other interviews out there with Bazir, but they aren’t usable sources by our standards, or in the case of one behind a paywall. ― novov (t c) 10:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Generally I feel like primary interview sources have a broader leeway with reliability so long as there is good evidence the developer is being interviewed, but this is probably more appropriate for indie games and/or where reliable interview sources can't be found. I have access to that issue of Play and will add some quotes in after the GAN review. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Do the sources cited verify the text in the article? Y Spot check on source quotes did not yield anything unusual.

Are media and links properly attributed and do not have copyright issues? Y No problems here and the templates are filled correctly with additional description on what they depict. Great work.

Any other personal opinions or miscellaneous feedback that may or may not be relevant to the nomination?   See below:

• Headline
  • The lead could contain a little more information about gameplay given the dominant focus of the paragraph seems to be on describing the premise and plot.
  • You may want to more clearly separate that the game is based on a series of comics, and that the prologue, Start Again, is a video game based on them.
  • For accuracy, you'll want to characterise the treatment of the reviews as it was depicted in Metacritic, which is that the reception was "generally positive". Pedantic but it helps to keep check of when things start to become editorialising.

 Done. ― novov (t c) 10:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Gameplay
  • Personally, I'd reorder a little bit to discuss the core gameplay mechanics first before the time loop details, it helps to understand that it's a role-playing game where players navigate an overworld, interact with characters and enter turn-based battles before getting into the details.

 Done. Most of the sourcing focuses a lot on the looping, but I added what I could. ― novov (t c) 10:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Plot
  • I'd very slightly edit this down if you can. It's not WP:TOOLONG, the word count is actually right on the maximum limit suggested by WP:VG/PLOT but it does outstrip all other sections in the article. Consider that the section suggests a "straightforward plot summary" for unsourced sections and that plots with multiple endings usually treat those endings with "simplest level of detail". That said, what is in there is dealt with in the appropriate tense and tone.

Very slightly edited down to ~640 words. While I've got the handle of the standard VG plot format I'm still not too good at paring things down. However, this is a plot which is reasonably involved so I'm not sure how much further it can be cut.

I did initially want to completely remove the last paragraph, as it deals with an optional fight, and it reads a lot better without it, but I think readers would generally consider Loop’s origins an important part of the plot. ― novov (t c) 10:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Development
  • which they picked up impulsively when it was on sale is a bit trivial, and clearly comes from a source. Try and avoid editorialising when you can.
  • Just confirming Bazir uses they/them pronouns?
  • No need to quote the word "simplicity" as it's not a direct quote from IGN.

 Done. The pronouns were intentional; according to Valentine Bazir uses both she/her and they/them pronouns. ― novov (t c) 10:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reception
  • Seems like the section is almost well organised into thematic paragraphs around topics covered in the reviews which is preferred as per WP:VG/MOS. I recommend you follow up this by identifying the themes of the review with topic sentences (i.e. Reviewers generally praised the game's narrative and worldbuilding), and avoiding the use of trite or uninformative quotes i.e. (Catherine Lewis called it "unmissable").

 Done. Very good point regarding the quotes, I think it works a lot better now that I've fleshed some of them out a bit. ― novov (t c) 10:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

References

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.