Talk:And Yet It Moves/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bridies (talk · contribs) 06:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commencing review, comments shall follow within the next day or two. bridies (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main comments

1. I've done a copy edit and the prose is fine. The predominance of the passive voice in the development is just a tad odd, but not too big an issue.
2. One assumes the paragraphs with no citations in the gameplay section are either from the primary source or collated generally from the references, so that's ok, but:
- The near final version of the game was submitted to Nintendo's Quality Assurance team in May 2010 to inspect and find bugs. The game was released on WiiWare in North America on August 23 and in Europe on August 27. specific dates like these need a citation.
- As do sales: "More than 370,000 units of the game were sold as part of the Humble Indie Bundle 3."

And some sourcing issues in the reception section:

- The Popzara review needs removed. We've no consensus for this publication as reliable and they don't have any authority I believe. Looking into the site and its publisher it appears borderline at best, which might be just about be OK for a review in a better-than-nothing scenario; but including a "superlative" review from such a site in a GA, no.
- Ditto the Destructoid review. We have some past discussion on Destructoid (see above link) and the consensus is that as a blog it lacks the required editorial oversight and thus the authors must be recognised experts themselves if we are to cite them. I looked into Matthew Razak and he writes for another unreliable (for our purposes) site and a film site. So a paid-per-hit blogger calling the game a "masterpiece" and such isn't admissible here.
- Suggest possibly more detail from the reliable sources already here, or looking for more. If GameSpot, IGN and 1UP reviewed it I don't see why others might not.
3. Gameplay section is fine; development section would appear to be comprehensive; reception section is short-and-sweet, appropriate for an indie game
4. Neutral, ~~aside from the possibly OTT reviews~~
6. Stable
7. Images are fine, FURs are adequate.

Will check some content against the sources later. bridies (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update non-RS reviews removed and replaced with the good-enough Nintendo Life. Have checked some statements against the sources and all is fine. I note no cites for the release dates but I wouldn't consider this to be a controversial issue in such a recent game. Will Pass. bridies (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]