Jump to content

Talk:Contradiction: Spot the Liar!/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Shapeyness (talk · contribs) 00:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 00:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Reviewing this has been nice so far, because it helped me find out that Follin is still interested in a sequel.

@Cukie Gherkin: Thanks for reviewing this so quickly and for all the copyedits! I have some responses below, will try to get to the unanswered ones soon too Shapeyness (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  1. Question: Is OS X just shorthand for Mac OS X, or is OS X a more general platform that applies to more than Mac OS X?
    I believe OS X is just shorthand for Mac OS X, this is something I left pretty much unchanged from when I began editing this article (although it seems consistent with other game articles as far as I can tell). Shapeyness (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Should mention and cite that it is a single-player game in the text (ie, "Contradiction is a single-player murder mystery adventure game"
    I added this in and changed the citations around. Shapeyness (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  1. Not a GA issue, but it'd be good to get to converting the lead image to an SVG file.
  2. Not necessarily an issue from me, but I question if the navigation UI image is needed?
    I felt that it might be useful given this is discussed later in the reception section, and also gives an opportunity to show the interface for navigation and searching a location at the same time. Shapeyness (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, I may not have made this comment had I reviewed the Reception section before the images. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This may not be relevant for most, but on my ultrawide, the images are somewhat forcing themselves into other sections. Would it be possible for John Guilor to be placed in Development to squish the text less, since he's also responsible for casting?
    I changed the way the gameplay screenshots are displayed - does that help at all? Shapeyness (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

  1. "Characters can be found in various locations around the village and the player can navigate between them by moving through the village or selecting where to go on a map." This feels a little clunky, like the characters are landmarks.
  2. Could it be made clearer that characters showing up are fixed events rather than random?
  3. I feel like the nature of the game's visuals should be mentioned right away to help the reader picture what the gameplay looks like
    I've tried to shuffle things around/reword for these three, hopefully it's a bit better now. Shapeyness (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I made some small changes to the text

Story

  1. Is the mention of Kyle valuable?
    I decided to name the speaking roles but sadly had to cut mention of Kyle in the actual plot section to keep it from getting overlong - not sure if it is better to remove all mention of Kyle or try to add him into the plot somehow (he is how Jenks learns about the sign of the horns and is also there at the ritual sacrifice bit). Shapeyness (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I made some small changes to the text

Critical reception

  1. I would recommend that you use the Multiplayer.it review in the text if you are going to use it in the review box
  2. I reckon you ought to tweak the links to, say, Adventure Gamers instead of Adventure Gamers
    Yep definitely, visual editor seems to always get that wrong. Shapeyness (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Reviews also largely praised the calibre of acting, with descriptions varying from "credible"[20] and "decent"[24] to "enjoyably cheesy"[19] and "generally excellent"." The way this is structured, it implies (to me at least) that credible/decent are apart from enjoyably cheesy/generally excellent. Could this be tweaked?
  4. It may be worthwhile to just use the name of the author rather than the name and site after it's been stated; for instance, the second mention of McElroy could drop "for Polygon". It also may be worthwhile to cite McElroy's statement in the Legacy section as being by him rather than by Polygon.
  5. There's also some weirdness regarding wording; "However, other reviews were more positive, such as 148Apps' review which enjoyed how the game expanded over time, and Offworld's which felt this aspect of the game encouraged inventive gameplay." It feels a little awkward to say that the review enjoyed it or felt something. It might be an easy fix by changing things like this "A few reviews complained" to "A few reviewers complained"
  6. Does the comment on audio mixing need to be a note?

Legacy and possible sequel

  1. "Polygon stated that with Contradiction's release, the FMV genre, that had largely never worked before, was "beginning to find its place"." This feels a bit like "that had largely never worked before" is a statement of fact rather than Polygon's

Sources

Whoops, forgot to check this.

  1. I would consider limiting the use of Valnet sources. They're not necessarily bad, but if possible, they should be replaced. For the CBR sources, I think you could get away with simply dropping them, as they do not offer much commentary but are instead used to strengthen a claim. I noticed both TheGamer and CBR are used to cite that it's one of the best FMV games; for TheGamer source, I think it's acceptable to verify info about what FMV games are, but I question if its standing among FMV games has strong verification since 2/3 of the sources are listed as situational.
  2. I'm not seeing Bitpulse on the reliable sources for video games page; can you elaborate on the potential reliability of the site, or replace with a source listed here or here?
  3. Can the primary Amazon source be replaced with a secondary source? As far as AFTV goes, I think it's probably fine since it does seem to get cited a lot according to its about page, but I'd recommend finding a better source if you want to bring it to FAC.
    Sadly I couldn't find any other source that mentioned this when I added this part - probably because it came out a few years after the main release and I don't think there are many outlets that focus on releases for Amazon Fire. I will give it another go though and see if I can find anything. Shapeyness (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. I don't even know if it'll be a problem at FAC, but for now this is fine. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

  1. Checked [1] and this. The first seems to cite everything in the sentence attached at the beginning of Gameplay aside from the name of the setting, while the second does not seem to cite anything when placed here is being cited here. Aside from that issue for the latter, it is accurately used, and the former is used adequately aside from the area name, which should be cited.
    I think this is fixed now. Shapeyness (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Checked [2]; "Time advances when key points in the story are reached, beginning at 5pm and ending at midnight. At each hour, new locations, characters and events unlock." is not cited (unless I flubbed and missed it)
    Oops I could have sworn that had those details too, will find another source for this soon. Shapeyness (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is fixed now. Shapeyness (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Checked [3]; in doing so, I noticed that neither attached source states the name of the brother. If there is no source verifying his name, it may be worthwhile to just say "his older brother."
    I added another source that mentions the name. Shapeyness (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  1. The article is in fantastic shape, the biggest issue I noticed is that commas are sometimes left out where they ought to be included. I think this would not take much work to make it FAC-ready. Anyway, I finished the review! 🎉 - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through it, I'm comfortable giving the article the A-Okay. Nice job! - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Contradiction:_Spot_the_Liar!/GA1&oldid=1285385021"