WikiProject iconVideo games: Indie GA‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the indie task force.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

GA Review

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.


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

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 00:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this one on. Looks concise, compliant with the MOS and well organised and written. I'll post any comments shortly. VRXCES (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Index

Nota bene* This is an issue I think is directly relevant to the GAN.
exclamation mark  This is an issue I think is indirectly relevant, but worth addressing.
Blue question mark? This is just a personal preference or comment that could help.

Summary

The article is well written and has few real issues. It could do with a copyedit and I've put some suggestions below that you may like to consider.

Many of the suggestions aren't wildly necessary to the GAN process and are fairly superficial improvements. Please don't feel obliged to action these ones and you're welcome to consider them after the nomation process.

Suggestions

exclamation mark  You may like to include the year of release in the headline.

Done

exclamation mark  The headline's summary for the single-player mode could be better explained, particularly given it alludes to a negative response.

I added a few more details. Anything in particular that you think should be elaborated on?

Nota bene* Is there a better source of attribution for the Showdown cover than the Fandom page? It's obvious the art does not originate from Fandom.

The real source for it was the press kit I believe, added a link to there

Nota bene* The gameplay section suggests the single-player mode contains a narrative element. Really recommend expanding this to a 'Plot' section after the 'Gameplay' section if this is a notable feature of the mode. As per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, this doesn't have to be sourced.

The problem is there really isn't much of a plot. Just the narrative introduction, one short cutscene apiece for each character, and then the final boss. There used to be a plot section for this game back on Shovel Knight, but there was so little to work with without putting in cruft for each of the cutscenes. Some reviewers even noted that the story was very weak.

Blue question mark? The article's could take a shorter and more direct approach to prose. Examples include directly listing items "X, Y and Z" rather than stating that they "range from X to Y", which is an odd framing.

Could you give me an example on how to do this? I want to make sure I get the framing write so I can improve in the future
No problems. Some random thoughts below - let me know if this wasn't quite what you wanted feedback on and happy to chat -

Blue question mark? The grammar pedant in me wonders if many paragraphs could not start on a preposition or passive voice. For instance, 'between' and 'in addition to the multiplayer gameplay' could easily be removed.

I reworded and removed a few of these

Blue question mark? I don't mind at all but I've found in my own GANs that some editors prefer the content of review sources being written or expressed instead of said. I get there's only so many verbs to go around!

Tried changing a few of the verbs to help out.

Blue question mark? dissuaded him - if the review is attributed to the publication and not the author, best to take a neutral approach to the pronouns.

Reworded
The discussion above 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.