Talk:Silent Hill: Origins/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 07:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll be looking at this over the weekend. CR4ZE (t • c) 07:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And here it is.

• Is it necessary to mention all of the regional release dates in the lead? It's pretty dull to read when the infobox covers that already. How about something like "it was released worldwide in late 2007, beginning with the United Kingdom in late October", and then follow on from that in a similar fashion.
• My main concern with the Gameplay section is that there are some important bits that are briefly glossed over where some further development would be helpful for the non-player. "The game uses a third-person perspective with alternating camera angles; the player can press a button to pan it behind Travis"—the camera alternates between what exactly? There's an example being drawn but not comparison, so how exactly the camera alternates remains unclear. "Often, actions performed in one dimension will affect the other"—no examples? What kind of actions and what kind of affectation? The sourcing in this section is really decent, and that gives you room to flesh the Gameplay out because the reviews that I'm reading give a more detailed insight into some key mechanics that could be explained better. The IGN review for example dives a little bit deeper into the combat with information that I'd say isn't crufty and would be helpful being mentioned here.
• "If no weapons are immediately available, Travis can use his fists"—but if Travis acquires weapons, he can no longer use his fists?
• "Origins also introduces the "grapple" system, a quick time event during which a monster grabs Travis, and certain button combinations are presented to the player to execute, in order for him to escape"—this is an out-of-scope that I recommend (without mandating) you act on, but this sentence is particularly messy.
• Don't refer to the player as "he or she", especially if you're using "he" to refer back to Travis, because that becomes confusing. "They" is better. Reworking sentences to use active voice is even better. You're using "he" to refer back to Travis right after mentioning the player, so it becomes hard to keep up with who you're talking about.
• "He regains consciousness in the town, and resolves to learn if the girl survived"—the girl in the road, or the girl in the house fire? Or is there only one girl? I'm a little confused here.
• "and periodically encounters an unburned Alessa, who does not answer any of his questions"—this is the girl who died in the fire, who's now alive and healed, and giving Travis the silent treatment? I'm finding this plot inordinately difficult to follow.
• "He also unlocks his repressed childhood memories"—this sentence features parallel tenses, which I again recommend-without-mandating that you fix.
• I've given up trying to understand the rest of the Plot. There's talk of Alessa coming back and freeing herself from a "spell", and then being dead and burned again later but somehow being sacrificed...again...to give birth to a god, and then she has a baby that contains half her soul... Basically, this plot section is all over the place and I have got no idea what is going on because of the way that it's been written. If the "Alessa" that Travis encounters is a spirit manifestation, it should be mentioned. That's a start that would do wonders in regard to clarity. From that, there are some parts that need to be entirely rewritten.
• What is the relevance of the entire first paragraph of Development? It's talking about a planned remake of the first Silent Hill that never actually happened.
• "The first previews of the game featured a radical departure from the usual gameplay format"—of what? And what does "usual gameplay" mean?
• Silent Hill is sometimes written without italics throughout the article (yes, I noted that the setting of Silent Hill should be written without them).
• "the release date was also pushed forward"—from what, to what?
• "the developers intentionally replicated aspects of gameplay and atmosphere from the first installment"—examples?
• "The changes were well received by observers"—Who are "observers"? Do you mean journalists? Fans? Alessa?
• What is the relevance of the Amazon listing for the PS2 port? Seems like trivial fluff to me.
• Is that all the information there is on the game's music? Would you like to include a track listing?
• "The storyline was a mixed bag for reviewers". WP:IDIOM. Please rephrase.
• You might like to split this paragraph as the second half talks about art design/graphics that would work better on its own.
• "and reviewers criticized the fewer save points"—relative to what?
• "The game's adherence to the series' formula"—same problem. What is the formula? Survival horror?

The prose is often very messy but still readable, so I won't press on too much about it, but it needs serious work if you have an FAC in mind. I'll put this on hold for the time being and let the messiness slide, but there is still lots of work to be done to get this to GA status. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi @CR4ZE:, and thank you for taking the time to review. I think I have addressed your stated concerns, although I would like to hear more about the issues with the prose, so that I may fix them. :) If I have overlooked something, please let me know. As for your problems with the plot, parts of the story are deeply ambiguous, such as the encounter with the demon from the Flauros at the end. That, however, is not an excuse for sloppiness. I've rewritten the section and would appreciate your feedback. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The new plot is absolutely night-and-day with where it was. Much clearer to understand, so thanks for the great work. With regards to the prose, you had sentences come up that were mouthfuls to read, especially in Gameplay. I can see that you've been doing some copy-editing, which has improved the prose a lot. I think there's still some room for concision if you're going for FAC. For example:

Origins was first announced at the 2006 video game convention Electronic Entertainment Expo, where it was revealed that the game would not be produced by Konami's Team Silent, who had developed all the previous installments, but by Climax Studios

could be

At the 2006 Electronic Entertainment Expo, Origins was announced as in development by Climax Studios, instead of by Konami's Team Silent who had developed previous installments

"video game convention" and "where it was revealed that" are redundant. E3's name is self-explanatory but there's a wikilink there for people who haven't heard of it, and "where it was revealed that" is just filler that weighs down the sentence. These are changes that are not required for the GA criteria, but I advise you to continue scrutinising your work if you have an FAC in mind. My final comments before I can pass this GAN are for the dead links the reference section, particularly everything GameSpot. They need archiving. If you can get that done, I'll pass the article. CR4ZE (t • c) 01:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I'll definitely take another look at the prose. As for the dead links, I can't tell which ones are dead. I've taken care of the GameSpot ones, but I'm unsure of what the others are. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Neither link for the PALGN review (ref #3) appears to work, but that could just be something on my end. I'll let you check it yourself, though it's probably not something I need to hold this up on. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:54, 17 July 2014 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Great work. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)