Talk:Stray (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs) 20:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't done a GA review in a while. Should have a full review up within the next few days. JOE BRO 64 20:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here... we... go.

You're using semicolons quite excessively and I found it a little distracting. I know from experience that semicolons are easy to misuse so I'd advise going through the article to find unnecessary ones. I removed some that stood out to me as needless during my read, but I know I didn't get them all—there are five semicolons in the release paragraph alone, according to my Ctrl F.
Another issue I have is the amount of quotations, which I think goes against MOS:QUOTE. In particular, you've got a lot of scare quotes in the Development section (Koola and Mermet-Guyenet had only developed some "visual scenes", the team figured that they "were on the right path", The sequence in which the player can kill the Zurks was seen as "revenge", etc.) and the reception section feels overstuffed with direct quotes. I'd recommend making an effort to go through and see how much you can paraphrase/rewrite.
I spot-checked two random refs in every section: #6, #8, #22, #26, #50, #68
- #6 does not support the statement that "They solve puzzles to progress the narrative, often involving moving obstacles." It mentions that you solve puzzles throughout the game, but doesn't say that they involve moving obstacles.
- #8 does not support the statement that B-12 "translat[es] the language of other characters, stor[es] items found throughout the world, provid[es] light, and hack[s] into various technologies to open paths and solve puzzles." It never mentions that B-12 can hack or store items, and I think it's debatable whether the source's "B12 is able to interact with the numerous robotic characters the player encounters, adding some story and lore to what would otherwise be a plot-free game" supports the assertion that B-12 "translat[es] the language of other characters".
- Didn't see anything wrong with the other uses, so I'd double check the references in the gameplay section to ensure everything is properly cited.
—known as Koola and Viv, respectively— Is this really necessary? It's never brought up again.
Likewise, I don't think you need to say the game was "known by its working title HK Project" in the lede. It's never brought up again for the rest of the lede, so it strikes me as a little trivial. (I'm not talking about the actual article, just the lede).
I think the final paragraph in Development, concerning the game's announcement and eventual release, suffers from some WP:PROSELINE. This could be remedied by simplifying the information; I don't think the reader needs to know every exact trailer the release date was announced in. For example, "In a Sony trailer at the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2021, the release window was noted in fine print as October 2021; Sony later removed the fine print from the trailer. In July 2021, Annapurna Interactive released a gameplay trailer revealing an early 2022 release window; a trailer by PlayStation in April 2022 revealed that the game had been delayed to a mid-year release." could become something like "In a January 2021 Consumer Electronics Show trailer, Sony gave the game an October 2021 release window. Annapurna Interactive announced the game would be released in early 2022 in July 2021, but it was delayed to a mid-year release in April 2022." This specific instance is just my suggestion—you can tackle this how you'd like.
I think you have enough content for a Release section separate from the Development section. I'd make it using the final paragraph from Development and the player count info (beginning with "Highly anticipated following its announcement...") in the first paragraph of Reception.

And that's all I have to say. Placing the review on hold. Sorry for the wait @Rhain—I think you've done a fine job with this article and I'm looking forward to a second read. JOE BRO 64 12:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, @TheJoebro64! I've made some changes based on your comments. Please don't hesitate to let me know if there's anything else. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Passing JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]