Talk:The Crystal Key/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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)

• Edited. A lot of potential rephrasings ended up in confusing, double-possessive -'s territory ("publisher's parent's"), so I wasn't able to rewrite it completely. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

GAMEPLAY AND PLOT

•  Done "takes place from a character's eye-view" wouldn't it be simpler to just say first-person view? Is this some sort of MOS thing I'm not aware of?--Megaman en m (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Nope, it's not MOS related—it's just a turn of phrase I've been using in articles for years, inspired by a featured article I saw back in the day. My use of it in Halo: Combat Evolved was quoted approvingly by The New York Times, and I've always felt that it's clearer to outsiders than "first-person", so I'd prefer to leave it in there if possible. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not a problem.--Megaman en m (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

DEVELOPMENT

•  Done "suffered from "technical issues with [its] development platform" that slowed production" the source doesn't mention anything about slowed production.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• Looking at it like this, I can accept it.--Megaman en m (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Done "one of the adventure releases whose reception" What is meant by adventure releases? Adventure game releases?--Megaman en m (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• You are correct. Fixed—this informal usage slips into my Wikipedia writing occasionally. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

SALES

•  Done " The title was a key piece of efforts by..." I don't like how that reads, can you rewrite it?--Megaman en m (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Changed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Done "bought the publisher in March 2000" The article was written in Marth 2000, but it doesn't technically say that it was bought on that exact date.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Swapped it with one that specifies in the article body when the announcement was made. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• "According to PC Data, its sales in August alone were 19,079 units, for revenues of $358,984" How did you find out the source is PC Data?--Megaman en m (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• On the sidebar next to the chart (right below the "What was Selling?" header), it says "Source: PC Data". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• How did I even miss that?--Megaman en m (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

SEQUEL

•  Done "...revealed by DreamCatcher Interactive's Adventure Company label in April 2003." what is meant by label here?--Megaman en m (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's a synonym for "imprint" in this case, but now that I've thought of that alternative word, I actually like it better. Changed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

•  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)

• 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)

• I don't know what to make of GameBoomers as a reliable source, I asked about it on WT:VGRS.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• Fair enough.--Megaman en m (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

• Thank you for the review and kind words! I've responded inline above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's only been a day and I already can't prevent this article from passing, exemplary work!--Megaman en m (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• 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)