The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 02:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Great to see this game nominated. I'll take this one on. VRXCES (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Started the review below. Feel free to cross out or comment on anything as you go. As ever I'm mindful some of these enter the territory of personal opinion. Note I will follow up on some other aspects of the review, including doing a source check.
Does the article conform to the general standards of WP:VG articles including the WP:MOS? Mostly. Plot sections usually follows gameplay.
Sections covering development, promotion and release are usually merged but there's enough content to be no big deal.
Given the length is sufficient and the potential for significant expansion of the reception section as discussed below, I'd recommend considering subdividing reception into 'Sales' (if it can be found), then 'Reviews', 'Accolades' and 'Retrospective reception', given some of the reviews are contemporary, and some of what's in the 'Legacy' section is less a legacy and more retrospective praise for the game.
Is the article generally well-written? Yes. I could suggest some stylistic choices around prioritising active over passive voice and making drawn-out statements more concise, but these are not particularly critical to the GAN. One paragraph that stands out to me is the last paragraph of the reception section, which lists random comparisons raised in reviews to other works and media. This strikes me as a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE and could be condensed to just stating that "Reviewers found the motifs of Psi-Ops to be reminiscent of other creative works, such as [X], with comparisons drawn between the game and Second Sight, a first-person shooter with a similar premise". Especially when the comparisons aren't corroborated by other sources, it's not really that significant to point out.
Is the article broad enough in its coverage? Mostly. Psi-Ops received impressively broad reviews and there's quite a lot of WP:VG/S sources that are missed in the article: extant online reviews are: 1UP,[1] Electronic Gaming Monthly,[2] Game Informer,[3] Game Revolution,[4] GamePro,[5] GameSpy,[6] GameZone,[7] Official Xbox Magazine (available here),[8] Team Xbox,[9] and PALGN.[10]
If you are adding these sources to the template, make sure to keep it to about ten, prioritising the most high-profile ones.
You may also like to organise the review section thematically when adding more review coverage as discussed in the WP:VG/MOS.
If there are plenty of review sources yet to be included in the article, I wonder if there is more information out there that can provide more depth on development without relying on the Cinelinx article? I'm happy to assist with looking.
Are media and links properly attributed and do not have copyright issues? Mostly, but there are some issues. The link to a download for the game on a file sharing website may be a WP:COPYVIO: just because the publisher freely released it on their website does not mean that third party sources necessarily have the license to distribute it, although I note there's sources suggesting it was released for free. Best to avoid anyway.
Not sure about the fix link, but at any rate Wikipedia isn't really a file sharing directory.
Best practice is for screenshots to have a description outlining why they are necessary to visually illustrate something in the game, but this is a minor issue.