Talk:Sea of Stars/GA1

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

Nominator: PresN (talk · contribs) 22:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: A412 (talk · contribs) 22:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this one. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done with non-prose. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I'm done. This is GA-quality already, I have no substantial concerns to hold the article on. If you want to incorporate the suggestions / small wording changes below, go ahead, but in general tell me when I'm good to press the "Pass" button. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As of this revision.

• [1] - Fine.
• [6] - I'm not sure what supports either sentence of Characters and enemies each have some amount of health points; when enemies run out of points they dissolve, while when characters run out of points they are knocked unconscious for a number of rounds. If all characters are unconscious at the same time, the game is ended.
• [11] - Fine.
• [18] - Fine.
• [23] - Fine, slight preference not to source on August 29, 2023 to a source from February 2023. Is [1] acceptable to you?
• [27] - Fine, but slight preference to source the DLC announcement to a non-primary source. Are [2] or [3] acceptable to you?
• [33] - Fine.
• [36] - Fine, but same non-primary source concern for sales figures. [4] for 5M, [5] for 6M okay?
• [41] - Fine.

• My only concern is related media and non-primary sources, for reasons of due weight. (DLC + sales figures as mentioned above, as well as the soundtrack and artbook.) If we can't locate non-primary sources, though, I'm fine with keeping them as is as the mentions are brief and I have no reason to doubt their authenticity.

• Earwig is clean.

• Fine.

• Fine.

• Fine.

• Fine.

• Infobox: fine.
• Gameplay: fine.

• No substantial comments.

• First paragraph
  • Question: In the lead we say the player controls two heroes, but here we say the player-character and their allies. Is one the player character? Why the pluralization difference?
    • I see, controlling either Valere and Zale. Maybe edit the lead to match?
• Second paragraph
  • If the player is playing in co-op mode -> In co-op mode for wordiness and avoiding the awkward pluralization?
  • The characters can freely run, swim, and climb the terrain as appropriate as if it was a fully three-dimensional world - does the sentence lose anything without that phrase?
    • Also my grammar memory is failing me on if this should be as if it were or as if it was.
      • I think it's as if it were for hypotheticals [6] [7]
• Third paragraph
  • Wikilink turn-based?
  • until they can take action -> until they can take an action
  • the game is ended - Awkward, the game ends?
• Fourth paragraph
  • No comments.
• Fifth paragraph
  • If the player has more than three party members—up to six - I don't love this wording, because of the possible read that this describes a specific behavior for party sizes between three and six. Suggestion: The player can have up to six party members; if they have more than three,
• Sixth paragraph
  • which can -> who can?

• No substantial comments (other than "wow, this plot's kinda out there")
  • Worth linking misanthropic and sidequest?

• First paragraph
  • Can we reduce the WP:SOB of the triple-linked side-scrolling action-platformer?
  • the studio grew from the seven developers to twenty-five - Can drop the
• Second paragraph
  • Personally I'd relink Chrono Trigger. The last link is like two page scrolls up.
  • The team wanted the game to evoke the memory of those older games via the aesthetic -> its aesthetic
• Third paragraph
  • The difficulty was balanced so that players would not be discouraged from skipping battles or moving to the next area, or incentivized to spend time grinding in one place - I think this is technically grammatically correct, but it's hard to read between the double negative of not be discouraged, and determining if not be applies to incentivized
• Fourth paragraph
  • while removing the restrictions of the inspiration games -> the game's inspirations?
• Fifth paragraph
  • which producer Phillip Barclay has said gave a boost to the campaign - Just said?
• Sixth paragraph
  • before allowing them to expand beyond the literal limitations of the era - what does this mean?
• Seventh paragraph
  • adding up to three-player co-op options - Consider adding co-op for up to three players

• First paragraph
  • No comments.
• Second paragraph
  • though the depth had a mixed reception - I think depth by itself is confusing. depth of the mechanics?
  • The GamesRadar+ review also criticized a lack of depth across all of "the mechanical parts" of the game, including the puzzles and side activities, though IGN's review said they were simple but required "a decent amount of thought". - I don't think we need to specify that these are reviews.
• Third paragraph
  • Kerry Brunskill of PC Gamer said it was shallow and predictable but hold together => held
  • dream of an SNES game - Source uses dream SNES game, which I think is slightly different and clearer
• Fourth paragraph
  • No comments.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed