Talk:The Crystal Key

Latest comment: 5 years ago by JimmyBlackwing in topic GA Review

Source

edit

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Crystal Key/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Megaman en m (talk · contribs) 12:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply


Here we go again!--Megaman en m (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·  

LEAD

  •   Done "It was central in efforts by the publisher's parent Cryo Interactive to penetrate the North American market" the 'central in efforts' part reads weirdly, I'd rephrase it.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

GAMEPLAY AND PLOT

DEVELOPMENT

  • Looking at the source again, I can see how it could be interpreted in a different way than I did. But I think there's a solid case for context in this sentence: "Beyond that, there were some technical issues with the development platform we used for the first game, so one goal was to find a new platform that would solve those problems and allow us to do everything we needed to do as quickly as possible." To me, the use of "a new platform that would ... allow us to do everything we needed as quickly as possible"—when contrasted against the "technical issues" from the first platform—clearly says that technical problems slowed the development of The Crystal Key. They were looking for a way to speed up development past what they'd done before. That's my read of the sentence, anyway. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

SALES

CRITICAL REVIEWS

  •   Done "and Silvester similarly noted its "muddy" visuals and anticlimactic ending.[5][6]" Why is David Ryan Hunt sourced for something Silvester said? Also I can't find where he mentioned the anticlimactic ending.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • The CGSP ref is technically for Hunt's comment about the ending—I was basing it on Hunt's words that "your explorations will be interrupted when you realize that you just saved the universe and the game is over." Anticlimactic might not be the best word to summarize both Silvester's and Hunt's opinions here, so I've changed it to "abrupt". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

SEQUEL

  •   Done "Initially developed by Earthlight and set for a late-2003 release,[32][35]" The Gamespot article was written in 2003 and stated it would be published next year, which would be in 2004.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Hmm, true. And I see now that "winter 2003" could potentially mean "early 2004", which confuses things. I've decided to remove the GameSpot ref from that sentence and go with the press release alone, alongside a straightahead "winter 2003" quote instead of an attempt to interpret what DreamCatcher meant. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I can't speak to whether GameBoomers' editorial content is a useful source, but interviews generally fall under the category of "primary sources" regardless of who publishes them, as long as there's no question that the interview is real. Given that interviews are often the only extant peek into a game's development (as is the case here), it's a longstanding practice to cite interviews of all stripes in WPVG. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Final notes: Another great article, shouldn't take much at all to get it to GA. (I went ahead and cleaned up some of the smaller things this time around, included a misquoted sales number).--Megaman en m (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Thank you again! I really appreciate the great reviews you've given this and Traitors Gate. Wasn't sure how long they were going to have to sit there in the GAN queue before someone gave them a shot. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply