Talk:Schim/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 20:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: A412 (talk · contribs) 04:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - Fine.
[6] - It does seem a bit WP:SYNTH to say The visual use of light and shadow were viewed to effectively complement the game's concept by some reviewers, presumably based on SCHiM is an enjoyable light and dark-based platformer and The aesthetic of SCHiM is fully complementary to the experience and - i.e. I think the first is commenting on the gameplay, and the latter on the aesthetics of the game, but I'm not convinced the source is specifically discussing light and shadow when it complements the aesthetics of the game.
[11], [16] - Fine.
[21] - Fine, but citing the release date announcement four times seems like WP:CITEOVERKILL?
[26], [31] - Fine.
[31] - We have judges praising versus the source's One of the judges said.
[36], [41] - Fine.

The Tokyo Game Show part of the awards section appears solely sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources (to the show, not to the game). Can we find secondary source discussion of that?
Fine otherwise. There are some questionable sources, but they're all used for interviews, which is generally fine per WP:ABOUTSELF.

Earwig clean besides quotes.

Fine.

General comment: Lead doesn't really cover the development section.
First paragraph
- Stylizes as SCHiM -> I think we usually say stylized / stylised (MOS:STYLIZED).
- The game is an action-platformer - do sources call it this? Most seem to just call it a platformer.
- 'schim' -> "schim" (MOS:DOUBLE)
- the game's visual presentation and the novel gameplay concept - phrases agree better if second is shortened to novel gameplay concept.

First paragraph
- Schim is an action-puzzle game - this seems to both disagree with the lead and the sources.
- ...and follows him through life stages, from his youth to study, graduation and career.[1] Now fully grown up, the man... - I think that, if you change how the sentences are broken so that this is one sentence, this would work better. The first time I read this, I read the man and had to re-read it a couple times to determine what character that might be referring to.
Second paragraph
- cast shadows that allow the player reach new areas - bit confusing, what's casting these shadows? The object the player is already inside the shadow of?
- further than jumping -> further than by jumping or further than it can jump
- The game contains 65 levels - bit awkward in this paragraph discussing the mechanics of the game, seems better in first or third paragraph which are more discussing the structure of the game.
Third paragraph
- 'risky mode' -> "risky mode"

First paragraph
- Schim was created by Dutch independent developer -> developers
Second paragraph
- Schim was developed by van der Werf in the Unity engine, creating custom shaders for the game - Grammatically awkward (what's the subject of the second clause?); reword to either Schim was developed in the Unity engine by van der Werf, who also created custom shaders for the game, or Van der Werf developed Schim in the Unity engine, creating custom shaders for the game.
- although expanded this to having each level have its own color scheme - Consider just each level having
Third paragraph
- Playism published the game in Japan - Mention that Extra Life published the game elsewhere?

First paragraph
- finding the gameplay and controls were simple and accessible -> either finding the gameplay and controls simple and accessible or finding that the gameplay and controls were simple and accessible
- considered the gameplay was too repetitive -> either considered the gameplay too repetitive or considered that the gameplay was too repetitive
Second paragraph
- Consider linking minimalism, line art, and negative space.
- the degree of interaction with objects for encouraging exploration - I'm not really sure what this is trying to say.
Third paragraph
- and praising its delivery without dialog or text - I think dialogue is the more common spelling when used to refer to conversation.
- and that it was "disappointing" to see that - Quoting one-word in the middle of the sentence here is kinda odd - see the latter part of MOS:QUOTEPOV.
Fourth paragraph
- Fine.
Fifth paragraph
- 'International Innovators' -> "International Innovators" or without quotes

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed