Talk:Quiver (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 22:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: GGOTCC (talk · contribs) 20:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

neutral

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

• “Such as the Spiker and the Fajita Maker” - I do not play the game, so I am unfamiliar with the terms. It would be helpful to describe the weapons like how it done later in the sentence, ie. “Such as the Spiker, which looks like a dull bayonet, and the Fajita Maker, a flaming chainsaw.”
• “The premise of Quiver is that aliens have stolen orbs with the ability to travel back in time” - just to check, the orbs are the ones that can go back in time?
• The article refers to it being a “Doom clone” while wikilinked to the FPS article. Would it be more helpful to link the Doom article first and explain how Quiver is a copy?
• “which shoots projectiles from around the player” - Removing “from” may make this easier to follow.
• “and still be fun” → while being fun
• The semicolon (;) connects independent clauses. They are applied incorrectly in the line, “Fajita Maker; the Shredder, which lobs sticky grenades; the Alien Hell Hands, which shoots projectiles from around the player; and the Medusa Sphere, which reflects incoming projectiles back to the player's enemies.” The best way to check if the semicolon is being used correctly is if each clause works as its own sentence.

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Everything looks good

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Sources are good

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Looks good

   C. It contains no original research:

   Everything is cited

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No objections from Copyvios, nothing obviously copied

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

• The article is short and sweet, which is not inherently bad. However, I can not help but wonder more about the game. How does the plot conclude? Did development on simple hardware pose any problems? Why did the game need a “registration code” and demo if it was freeware? Were there any noticeable bugs PC gamer referenced? What were the issues with the game engine? Was this the dev’s first game, or did the game help/hurt them in any way? What do the aliens do to stop the player? What do the aliens look like? Why would the player want to stop the aliens from having the orbs? Why did the devs want to make the game freeware? You don't have to address all of my questions, but more explanations would be helpful, especially when things are alluded to but not discussed.
• Good job mixing complex and simple sentences; all the grammatical issues I raised are quick fixes.
• On an unrelated side note, I am utterly perplexed at the concept that a computer can not play Doom, lol.

1. B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Content scope is sufficient, although more info (see above) would be helpful.

2. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Article is neutral

3. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No ongoing wars. Switzerland of an article.

4. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   N/A, see below

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

• The article would greatly benefit from an image or two, ideally of the gameplay to visualize the descriptions. I am unsure if photos are required for GA status or not, although I understand why no images are available.

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• This is an obscure topic, so the sources are not as flushed out or in-depth as other articles. Ideally, several questions raised by the article (see 3A) could be addressed and further explained. However, this would be hard to do with the given sources and any further expansion would be difficult. That aside, the article is in good shape.
• These things should be addressed to be satisfactory for GA promotion.