Talk:Thinking with Time Machine

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thinking with Time Machine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 18:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: StewdioMACK (talk · contribs) 16:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I will review this in next few days. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Is there an actual source that it is built using Source engine? I know it is because it's a Portal 2 mod but I think this should be sourced and mentioned in the body if possible.
  • I did not find a reliable source that mentions this. This would kind of fall under WP:SKYBLUE because it's a mod for Portal 2, but if you want to, I can remove it from the infobox because it's unsourced.
• Template:Video game release should ideally be used for release date, per Template:Infobox video game.
  •  Done
• Lead could probably be expanded slightly, possibly including info on the developer's experience making the game.
  •  Done

Gameplay

• I think there could be a bit more discussion of the primary standard mechanics of Portal 2 to give a little context, and the linkage between the two (and how the mod enhances/augments standard mechanics) could be made more clear, both in the lead and gameplay sections. The Portal 2 article would have quality sources if you did want to add a bit of this.
  • I've added "The game also features other Portal mechanics such as buttons, cubes, and laser fields." I do not really want to go and describe these in detail, because they're not important as the main gameplay element and sources also do not go in detail (they're just there as mentions). The mod only adds what is already written in the article, that is the time machine tablet and the ability to see your own legs, and these additions already explained in the article. I've improved the lede a bit, but if you still have some issues please explain them in detail.
• Image placement is quite awkward. Left-aligning looks better I think although it is discouraged to sandwich near infobox in MOS:IMAGES. Expanding gameplay section if possible could aid this issue, then placing image near second paragraph instead of first.
  •  Done I've moved the image to the left.

Development

• "It took two years... there were ups and downs... I felt depressed and inspired... I wanted to give up so many times... but the desire to complete this miracle won out", Stridemann said. Could this be more naturally worked into the prose instead of simply pasting the entire quote?
  •  Done
• The game was one of the top 200 on Steam in 2014. The Ars Technica source here has more specific information available on player count at the time of publication. Could this be relevant for the article?
  •  Done
• Follow-up references to the developer should be "Rybka" (his last name) instead of "Stridemann" (his username). I believe a mention of the developer's location/nationality somewhere would be warranted if sourced.
  •  Done He's Ukrainian, but I did not find a reliable source for this, so I won't be adding it to the article.

Reception

• Bo Moore of Wired and Livingston compared the time machine mechanic to the 2010 The Misadventures of P.B. Winterbottom game. Becky Chambers compared it to the Braid video game. Perhaps this could be more detailed in the specific comparisons between these games, whether the comparison is positive or negative, what elements of the mechanic specifically, etc.
  • Sources sadly do not go in detail about these comparisons.
• The ability for the player to see their own legs by looking down was commended by reviewers. Which reviewers? Should O'Connor's praise be mentioned in the prose too?
  • That is the standard summarising per WP:VG/REC when there are multiple reviewers praising/criticising something. O'Connor just praised the addition, without going into detail about the addition.

General

• All the sources that are there look okay to me. I'm a little concerned about the over-reliance on the PC Gamer review but it appears to be unavoidable as I look at the different sources. I think it'd be good to see the article expanded a bit if possible. There appears to be a little bit of a comprehension/comprehensiveness issue as there seems to be some more info in some of the sources I pulled out, for example the Ukranian review.
  •  Done I've expanded parts of the article with the ITC source.
• I found a few more sources that may be useful/suitable to add to the article and the reception section: Hey Poor Player and Game Fanatics. If you agree that they are suitable, this could aid with the over-reliance on the Livingston PC Gamer review, particularly in the reception section.
  •  Done I did not add Hey Poor Player because according to this it leans unreliable, though it is listed as an inconclusive at WP:VG/S.
• Images are good, useful, appear to have suitable non-free rationales. Caption for the gameplay screenshot is a little clunky and could likely be improved/condensed.
  •  Done Caption amended.
• Article history is stable. Nominator has approximately 82% estimated ownership of article text (primary contributor).

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, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

You have a good article, however I'd like to put this on hold for seven days at this point to see what you think of some possible issues I've identified to better fit the GA criteria. Some tasteful expansion would be great to beef it up a little bit and provide some additional context. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@StewdioMACK: I've addressed most of your issues, and if you think that there's still some left please respond at relevant parts of the review. Overall, I appreciate the review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Alright, I'm happy to ✓ Pass after your edits/justifications. I've boldly made one edit to phrasing to make it clearer specifically when the developer was thinking about abandoning development. The article feels a bit short but I don't believe there's a length requirement to good articles, besides covering major aspects, comprehending sources well, and being well-written/illustrated, all of which this article is. StewdioMACK (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)