Talk:Smash Hit

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:Smash Hit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 21:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 07:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Fairly short article, but seems comprehensive enough. I'll review this. Nub098765 (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Bear with me, this is my first GA review.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Copyvio unlikely; 26.5% similarity.
   Sources are reliable (those that aren't are primary, which are fine).

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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Appropriately licensed and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• No copyvio and sources are reliable.
• Citations are identifiable.
• Discusses all available major points.
• Article is succinct and focused.
• Neutral in its diction.
• No blaring edit wars.
• Two images (one in the infobox): both are relevant, and the one not in the infobox is expanded upon. Both are fair use, so they are properly licensed.
• Nominator is a significant author of the article.

All good here.

Prose and MOS

• The player has to shoot metal balls to destroy obstacles made of glass, but must aim carefully with a limited supply of ammunition, as the game ends if it runs out. — I feel as though this sentence is a bit clunky. Perhaps it could be more concise: The player must shoot metal balls to destroy glass obstacles while aiming carefully, as the game ends when the limited ammunition runs out. or something of the sort.
  •  Done
• ...the player also needs to avoid traps. — What traps? Is it possible to elaborate on the kind or nature of these traps?
  • There are only glass obstacles in the game, so looking it at this again, I do not think that this is actually needed. I've removed it.
• ...grant the player an extra ball, allowing them to shoot up to five balls at once with only one ball in their ammunition. — What does this mean? If it grants them an extra ball, how does that translate to them being allowed to shoot up to five balls at once? And how would they only have one ball in their ammunition, if they are granted an extra ball? Please clarify.
  •  Done
• The game's music contained 33 tracks in total at the time of its release date, with Holmquist composing seven more in May 2014 and three more after the introduction of new game modes. — This sentence is very redundant unto itself. Perhaps this could be an upgrade: The game's music initially had 33 tracks, with Holmquist composing seven more in May 2014 and three after the introduction of new game modes.
  •  Done
• ...which Pugliese considered a negative aspect of the game. — Who's Pugliese? You introduce Tommaso Pugliese in full later in the article. Moving the introduction to here may be wise.
  •  Done
• Trevor Sheridan of AppleNApps said that the game stands by its name, but he also underlined the game's difficulty when moving through close spaces; Pocket Gamer also named Smash Hit as one of the hardest mobile video games. — Two things:
  • "close spaces" doesn't sound right. Perhaps you mean "narrow spaces" or "small spaces"?
  • "also" is used twice here. I recommend removing the first "also".
    •  Done
• Holmquist composed its music and sound effects; he also used placeholder sounds from Smash Hit that were ultimately unused in the game. — "also" seems wholly unnecessary here.
  •  Done
• Consider bundling and/or cutting down on refs, especially in the Reception section, per WP:OVERCITE.
  •  Done
• Also, in the Development section, ref 22 is cited multiple times in the same paragraph. WP:OVERCITE § Needless repetition says only to cite the end of the passage being cited. Maybe you could crack down on that?
  •  Done
• The paragraph beginning with Reviewers commended the game's visuals... and the one beginning with The game's music and sound effects were praised... could be merged; they discuss largely the same thing and the latter is only a few sentences. This is a stylistic choice, though, and you can ignore it.
  •  Done

Spotcheck

• Ref 2:
• Ref 3:
• Ref 4:
• Ref 6:
• Ref 12:
• Ref 15:
• Ref 16:
• Ref 20:
• Ref 24:
• Ref 29:
• Ref 32:
• Ref 36:
• Ref 39:

All good here.


Verdict

@Vacant0: I found barely anything wrong with this article. Very well-written; good job! These concerns are minor and I hope you'll address them promptly. I'll leave this for a few days. Thanks, Nub098765 (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Nub098765:. Thanks for the review. I've addressed all of your concerns. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, after another read, I see nothing more blaringly wrong; it seems up to par now. Good job! Nub098765 (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 01:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that every Smash Hit level has its own unique appearance? Source: Slater, Harry (11 March 2014). "Smash Hit". Pocket Gamer. Retrieved 18 August 2024.
  • ALT1: ... that unused placeholder sounds from Smash Hit were reused in Teardown? Source: Holmquist, Douglas (27 November 2020). "Teardown". Holmquist Tonalitet. Archived from the original on 30 November 2020. Retrieved 18 August 2024.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Andrea Navagero
  • Comment: If these two hooks aren't interesting enough, I'll be open to hearing any better suggestions.

Improved to Good Article status by Vacant0 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC).

• Newly promoted GA which is nice, article meets all requirements, I wouldn't necessarily go for the first hook since it sounds typical for any game but good to go for ALT1. Arconning (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I agree that ALT1 is better. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Featured article? This looks like an ad

Shouldn't be on the front page. Mediocre games has no presence in the industry and the article doesn't have anything notable. How did this happen? Japintov (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Japintov: Read WP:FA for more information. Skyshiftertalk 01:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Japintov I see your point but this game is pretty nostalgic I think for 2010s mobile gamers PyraticalPunk (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Featured Articles are determined by the Featured Article criteria and FACs are reviewed by users. Any Featured Article deemed good enough can be on Wikipedia's main page. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I tried to rewrite parts of the article I felt were poorly written, so I made an edit which can be seen here. I thought this was pretty clearly better, if not perfect, though it was quickly reverted with the reason being "Not an improvement" with no elaboration why that is. What exactly about the edit makes it "not an improvement"? The current article has various bloated and redundant sentences, strange ordering, and irrelevant details that I feel don't make for a very good article, and I feel I improved those. Knot126 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The article was recently promoted to WP:FA status so I think people then to be skeptical of changes. I would suggest explaining your reasons for the changes here. A big one immediately visible is the lead from rail shooter to first person rail shooter and endless runner. Is that description concise and covered by the sources? IgelRM (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

That's fair I suppose. I will try to elaborate on the changes I made.

For the change you mentioned specifically, even the now current the article itself goes on to describe Smash Hit as a "rail shooter and endless runner" (see the first paragraph of Gameplay), which I feel is just as concise while giving a better idea what the game actually is. The existing sources corroborate this.

I removed quite a lot of information from the lead, mainly because most of it was stated later in the article and I felt it was too verbose for a lead. For example, I didn't feel it was relevant to mention the game has (depending on how you count it, of course) 11/12/13 levels, and I also integrated the statement about the game being first-person into the first sentence, making the lead more concise.

I reorganised the paragraphs in the Gameplay section so that each paragraph better focuses on an aspect of gameplay. For example, ball gaining and multiball mechanics and powerups were split into their own paragraphs. I also changed some of the phrasing, for example "ammunition" was replaced with "balls", since I feel it's more clear. I also added a few more details about game modes.

(I will admit I made some questionable choices, though: I removed the sentence about dynamic music since it seemed like it didn't match what was actually in Smash Hit, though I reread the article and it does seem correct at second glance; additionally, I added an uncited block about being able to start from checkpoints by watching ads in newer versions; this is true and can be seen by playing the game, but I could not find a citation for it since it was only added in a minor update in 2024. I can understand if these might have been off-putting to the entire edit.)

The only other section I changed was the Legacy section, where I removed a lot of details that seemed overly specific to be on a Wikipedia article. Most notably, I removed the sentences "Computer scientists Margherita Antona and Constantine Stephanidis reported that no differences in difficulty were seen between the mobile and virtual reality versions of Smash Hit" (which I felt was an mention of an otherwise irrelevant study for a section that's supposed to be about the legacy of the game - perhaps if this were a section about the VR version specifically I would find it more fitting) and "Holmquist composed [Teardown's] music and sound effects, while unused sounds from Smash Hit were used as placeholders during the development" (which seems like an overly specific detail about the development of Teardown, a different game).

Hopefully this provides a good overview of the changes I made and why. ;P Knot126 (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Perhaps you have time to respond. I am not really party to this, but first-person in the lead definitely seems unnecessary specificc to me. IgelRM (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS:VG, the first sentence is not supposed to be bloated with genres. It is only supposed to state the primary genre of the game, which in this case is a rail shooter. Also, any content related to adaptations or sequels of games go into the Legacy section. Regarding the rest, this article underwent several reviews, a GA, PR, and FAC review, by 8 different editors, therefore I do not see why the lede would be cut so much. The lede is supposed to summarise the entire article, and the current lede already does this, as determined by reviewers. I've reinstated some of your edits that I found to be constructive and are backed up by RS (e.g. the new sentence on checkpoints and game modes are not covered by RS and therefore cannot be included, especially in a Featured Article). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)