Talk:Silent Hill (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   First issue I have seen, is in this sentence, "He eventually meets Dahlia Gillespie, the owner of an antiques store in Silent Hill, who gives him an unusual item, the "Flauros", and cryptic warnings about the near future", the part about calling the item "unusual" and calling the warnings "cryptic" seems to violate WP:NPOV. Reword the info. about the Flauros and perhaps paraphrasing what the purpose is and remove the word "cryptic" entirely. There is a disambiguation link please specify the person you want to link to. I can't really see any outstanding prose or format issues, if there are subtle ones, I cannot find them. So it Passes this entire section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The "endings" paragraph is devoid of references and has nothing to back up the wary statements in it. You can use {{Cite video game}} to cite it. Other than that, the references in the article check out to me. And no OR appears, except for some confusing wording in the plot section but that's more of a miscommunication rather than OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Gameplay section is GA passable. Development looks a bit skimpy, for a game like Silent Hill I would believe you could get more about initial development rather than inspiration and censorship. I don't have any ideas on how to expand on it, i'll get back to you on it but for now i'm a bit wary on passing the article.EDIT: Development is okay now after a large contribution by prime blue. Section is now passable. Also, plot seems to be pretty overwighted, it's understandable because of the multiple endings and how different the story can play out based on decisions during the story but it looks to violate WP:GAMEGUIDE with so many references to what decisions can be made. It needs to be trimmed. Trimmed to sufficiency. Additionally, in Reception, I only have story and gameplay based aspects reception (which is completely fine) but I don't see anything by a Japanese site, how the country of origin received it. Try using Dengeki and Famitsu and try to add new reception by them, also I see you haven't tried 1UP.com, I saw a scariest games ever listing with Silent Hill on it. Additionally to that, you should add a short blurb about the overall Reception to Shattered Origins in its Subsection, only a sentence along the lines of "The reimagining was met with mixed reviews, criticized for its lack of combat but praised for its musical score" however it does not need to be worded like that. Never mind, I reread the article, and I'll rescind these statements, it looks fine as it is. The reception is suitable for an article of this size, i've completely forgotten to take into account that the title is from 1999. As far as i'm concerned(and as i've compared to other good articles) it's broad and focused enough.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I'd be nitpicking to try and quantify how far biased the article could be. By my judgement, it is neutral for WP policy.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No Edit Wars recently, Stability Passes

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   This is fine.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am reviewing this currently as I am reading it thoroughly to familiarize myself with it. Comments will come a bit later. Here come's the finale, i'm really only wary to pass because of the lack of references in the plot section but the rest of the article is suitable for GA, once some Cite video game references are up, this will pass.

I'll have to dissent on some criteria passes:

• Reception overgeneralizes the topic and mostly just promotes one view, neglecting the number and diversity of the accessible reviews (those being GamePro, Game Revolution, GameSpot, IGN, Next Generation Magazine, Game Informer and GameFan) – for comparison, see the reception sections of other GAs from that era.
• When I went over the plot section again, I noticed that it is still about 200 words over the limit and gives attention to unnecessary details, while some allegedly sources sentences are not backed up by in-game comments but rather interpretations on the storyline.
• Also, there are still sources that can be worked into the development section, which is still a bit lackluster given the amount of information and the fact that this is the first game in a whole series.
• Furthermore, I would group Play Novel: Silent Hill (this is the title, not the other way around) with adaptions since it is not any more a release of the game than Shattered Memories or the film, then merge releases at the bottom of the general development comments.
• Lastly, the article needs a good copy-edit to correct awkward wordings and grammatical errors. Prime Blue (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The 2nd, 4rth and 5th issues have been dealt with (you said it's ok if there are more than 700 words, since there are multiple endings; could you count the words again with Word?). Golden Sugarplum (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Plot is currently at 867 words. As I said, it does not have to be strictly within the 700 words limits, but only if all that is there is actually essential to the plot. There is still a lot of random trivia that does not enhance understanding of the plot (such as "where it is snowing out of season", "and warnings about the near future", "who is as bewildered as Harry about their circumstances" etc.), while important plot points are neglected: For example, Kaufmann is introduced in great detail to the summary, but his role in the conspiracy is never explained. Also, there is a big problem with unsourced statements, prevalent in wordings such as "where he was brought by Cybil Bennett" (it is not stated how Harry got to the café) and "the owner of a store in Silent Hill" (Dahlia is not said to be the owner of the shop, as far as I remember). Prime Blue (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed "and warnings about the near future", "who is as bewildered as Harry about their circumstances", "where he was brought by Cybil Bennett". The sentence "where it is snowing out of season" helps readers built an image of the town's condition (the snow could be included in gameplay as a factor that hinders the player's visibility, together with the fog and the darkness). The sentence "the owner of a store in Silent Hill" is a fact. I own the game and its manual says, among other info like characters' ages, that Dahlia's the owner of the antiques store, which is named "Green Lion" and is located in the business district of Silent Hill. We can find a reference to cite this sentence and others that confirm Kaufmann was part of the scheme. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC) This source you posted before can be used for the endings part (http://www.translatedmemories.com/bookpgs/Pg28-29SH1Ending.jpg). I don't know how to do the process to put it up, so you should do it like before. The article can now be a GA. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Two things, even though i'm the reviewer I agree with a lot of Prime Blue said (although I never saw it in his perspective) he does bring up good points. Additionally, the joke ending sentence is still not referenced so that part wouldn't pass by my standards. But I also defer to Prime Blue to opine on pass or fail since he brought up the new points. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As the reviewer, i'll end this on a positive note as the issues i've listed have been fixed. As far as i'm concerned, this article is GA material. Any and all interested editors, if you wish to further improve the article look to Prime Blue's comments above so that you may have an easy time at FAC and have not the issues arise again to impede its FA Status. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)