Talk:Ether One

Some feedback

• There is too much direct quoting in this article. Everything should be paraphrased apart from specific phrases that can be put no other way.
• The lede doesn't accurately summarize the article. For instance, it doesn't mention puzzles or any detail about the development process. More can be said about the Reception section too.
• Summarize the aggregate opinion with human-friendly context, e.g.,

  The game received "mixed" reviews, according to video game review aggregator Metacritic.

  rather than

  The game was met with very mixed reception. GameRankings and Metacritic gave it a score of 57.52% and 59 out of 100 for the PlayStation 2 version, and 55.25% and 58 out of 100 for the PSP version.

 czar 20:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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:Ether One/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: StewdioMACK (talk · contribs) 08:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 23:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

As my comments have not been fully addressed within one week, I will be failing this nomination. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Review of this version.

1. Is it well written?

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

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

   The lead could be trimmed and more weight given to the critical reviews. The game play section should be shortened.

   The plot description meets MOS:FICTION.

   The last section of the Reception paragraph should be split and/or reorganized. It currently deals with comparison to Myst, the game's portrayal of dementia, the lack of violence, pacing of the puzzles, and the lack of an in-game map.

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:

   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):

   See spot check.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See spot check.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   The player controls a "Restorer", an individual with the ability to project himself into the mind of someone suffering from mental illness, in the hopes of restoring their memories. is copied from here (archived): Your role in Ether One is that of a Restorer, an individual with the ability to project himself into the mind of someone suffering from mental illness in the hopes of restoring their memories.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

   See spot check.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   The gameplay section is written neutrally and the review section provides due weight to the critical responses.

5. Is it stable?

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

   Page history and talk look good.

6. 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:

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

7. Overall: I am placing this on hold for one week for my comments to be addressed. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Pass or Fail:

Spot check

• Ref 3a: The article states that the player is aided by mysterious alien artifacts, which reads to me as if the artifacts are from little green men type aliens. But, the source describes them as oddly alien artifacts, using alien in the sense of foreign or strange.
  • Changed to "mysterious artifacts". StewdioMACK (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 4a: The source doesn't mention Pinwheel, describe it as the central location, or discuss how its buildings encourage people to enter them.
• Ref 5a: The source says dark mines and industrial factories not industrial mines and factories.
• Ref 6b: The source says that the author returned to previous areas to attempt to fill in gaps, but that he ultimately failed, not that: Previous areas can also be returned to at a later point, to fill in gaps in puzzles. Is there a source that says that the player can return to particular areas from the hub at any point more clearly?
• Ref 8a/5b: Ref 8a says Ether One packs a good 20 hours' play for the chronic underachiever., which to me means that a player can complete the story in 20 hours, not fully complete the game as the article states. Ref 5b is good.
• Ref 2b: Good.
• Ref 3b: Good.
• Refs 3c/6c: Good.
• Regarding the Development section and in particular refs 13, 15, 16, and 19: These are YouTube videos by the game developer about their history. They are used 8, 6, 1, and 7 times, respectively, or 22 times total, and appear to make up the bulk of the cites in the Development section. In all but one case, they are unaccompanied to a parallel citation to a secondary source. Moreover, there are no time stamps for any of these citations, and although this technically isn't required under GA citation rules, I don't think it's reasonable for a reviewer to spot check factual claims across almost 2 hours of video. Finally, WP:ABOUTSELF does not apply to at least ref 16. The text accompanying that cite states: The development process for Ether One was considered "quite long" for a first game. However, I don't think that the the game's developers are qualified to make that claim; they're not experts on the average length of first game development cycles.
• Ref 17a: Substantiates that the game was being developed for the Oculus Rfit.
• Ref 25a & b: Good.
• Ref 26a & b: Good.
• Refs 34 and 35: Good.
• Ref 39a: Sam Prell of Joystiq highlighted the haunting quality of the environments, comparing them to dreamscapes and favorably likening the game to the 1939 classic The Wizard of Oz. – The review does compare the film to The Wizard of Oz, but not in the context of its environment, but rather in describing the game's narrative structure.
  • Changed to the following: Sam Prell of Joystiq highlighted the haunting quality of the environments, and favourably compared the game's narrative structure to the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz. StewdioMACK (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 36c: Good.
• Ref 41: Good.
• Ref 40b: The game's portrayal of dementia was also well-received. This should be attributed, since one review can't establish that broad claim.
• Ref 37: Hansen of Destructoid praised the simulation of the condition, describing the game's approach as a reverse Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The review did compare the game to Eternal Sunshine, but it did not expressly praise its simulation of dementia. The review is largely focused on game play and environment from my read.

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.