Talk:Shovel Knight: Plague of Shadows

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Shovel Knight: Plague of Shadows/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Schminnte (talk · contribs) 16:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @

Review is now over, I'm putting this on the standard seven day hold period. Please indent your comments below and initial them. Meta comments should be kept in this are to avoid clutter. Looking forward to hearing from you: all the best, Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 22:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (

   lists

   ):

   MOS compliance:

   Meets

   MOS:LIST

   N/A) - S

   MOS:LAYOUT

   : I feel like the first and second paragraphs of §Reception could be merged - S

   Copyedits:

   §Infobox

   In the platform parameter, should this list be alphabetised? - S

   §Lede

   Gameplay is similar to the original Shovel Knight, but features a new story and alterations to the levels to account for Plague Knight's new movement is the comma needed? This seems like one connected point - S

   The game was originally conceived as a minor add-on to Shovel Knight, but grew in scale as development commenced same as above - S

   Plague of Shadows received positive reviews on release, with praise for its story and Plague Knight's moveset, some critics considering it to be more difficult than its predecessor something here feels off. I think the last clause could be better connected. E.g "Plague of Shadows received positive reviews on release, particularly for its story and Plague Knight's moveset, with some critics considering it to be more difficult than its predecessor" - S

   Fixed all of these issues.

   §Gameplay

   2D side-scrolling platform game is there a way to break up the links for readability? - S

   Sadly, I don't think so. This type of linking is common with other platform games such as Donkey Kong Country, and I'm not sure if there is a way to say it that would not sound confusing. But I am open to suggestions on how to reword it to improve the readability.

   Satisfied with explanation as common practice - S

   These altered effects include bombs which create a wall of fire on the ground or take a longer time to explode, to burst jumps that allow Plague Knight to fall slowly or shoot projectiles I don't see a range here, so the construction "effects include xyz, to xyz" doesn't really work - S

   Plague Knight features a lower amount of health than Shovel Knight, but can drink potions found inside levels to increase his maximum amount is comma needed? - S

   This increase is temporary, and the player loses the extra hit points upon death this could mean that the effect is temporary and the player loses it on death or that the increase is temporary because its lost upon death. Could this be clarified? - S

   Are "Arcana" and "Relics" meant to be in capitals? - S

   I found Arcana to be capitalized in most articles, and Relics to be lowercase or uppercase. For consistency, I put them both in uppercase

   §Plot

   He is aided by his alchemists and his assistant Mona, who all pursue alchemy in secret due to the local villagers fearing and rejecting it Underlined words are redundant - S

   Partly done - S

   Plague Knight gradually defeats the other members of the Order of No Quarter as well as Shovel Knight, and gathers the essences into his alchemical machine Is comma needed? - S

   In a post-credits scene, Plague Knight and Mona share a dance together in their laboratory "Together" is redundant: by nature of sharing a dance, they are doing it together - S

   §Development and release

   As part of the Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign for Shovel Knight back in 2013, Yacht Club Games listed several stretch goals, additional features for the game added when the funding met a certain target comma after goals would be better as brackets, a colon or dash - S

   Added colon

   Among the stretch goals were the addition "was the addition"? - S

   The developers held a vote on which bosses would receive their own campaigns "their own" is redundant - S

   a new character with different movement and slightly altered bosses "movements" - S

   As production commenced, the team decided to create Plague of Shadows as its own independent title. Last part works better as "as an independent title" - S

   The developers desired for the playable Plague Knight to act similar to his "similarly" - S

   was released on September 17, 2015 date comma after 2015 - S

   The expansion was released concurrently with a new Challenge Mode that features gamplay scenarios that the player can complete "gamplay"? - S

   §Reception

   while Gamer.nl called the DLC was well-designed and executed grammar is wrong here, "was" is spurious - S

   character of Shovel Knight, and featuring more complex combat don't see a need for the comma here - S

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (

   reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism

   ):

   All information (bar plot) is cited to sources that are clearly RS - S

   Earwigs shows low copyvio, see below for spotchecks:

   Ref1 (Rougeau 2017): Pass for verifiability and copyvio. I don't see anything about side-scrolling but at this point it's pretty much SKYISBLUE stuff based on the main article - S

   Ref7 (Yacht Club Games 2019):

   a: pass for verifiability and copyvio - S

   b: pass for verifiability and copyvio - S

   c: pass for verifiability and copyvio - S

   d: pass for copyvio possible OR. The source says "One thing bothered us—Plague of Shadows didn't communicate well that it was effectively a new game, and not just a minor DLC add-on", which doesn't mention anything about the levels being the reason - S

   Oops! It appears as though I missed that one. It was over in another USgamer source, and I must've forgotten to list it there. The source talks about how the developers thought the levels were too similar when compared in screenshots, leading them to create different themes and designs for their next game. The source should be there now

   Happy with this now - S

   Ref9 (D'Angelo September 2015): pass for verifiability and copyvio - S

   Ref10 (Priestman 2015):

   a: pass for verifiability and copyvio - S

   b: fail for verifiability, I think this is a misplaced ref? - S

   Highlighting this point specifically - S

   Ref12 (Theriault 2015): pass for verifiability and copyvio - S

   Ref15 (Sherif 2015): pass for verifiability and copyvio - S

   Ref18 (Metacritic):

   a: pass for verifiability - S

   b: pass for verifiability - S

   c: pass for verifiability - S

   Ref21 (Matulef 2015):

   a: pass for verifiability and copyvio - S

   b: pass for verifiability - S

   c: pass for verifiability and copyvio - S

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Judging by other DLC GAs, I think this touches on all the major aspects - S

   Stays on-topic throughout - S

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Balanced well, with a fair reception section. Metacritic only has positive reviews, so this is representative of the whole - S

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Looking at the rather short history shows no edit warring - S

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Plague of Shadows.webp has an appropriate fair use rationale as a piece of cover art. Caption is not needed as a self-explanatory infobox image - S

   File:Plague of Shadows Gameplay.webp would be an appropriate fair use as identification for the game. However, I think the better template to use here is {{Non-free video game screenshot}}. Caption is fine. Question: I see some VG GAs put the gameplay image on the left hand side, thoughts? - S

   Good suggestion. I moved it left and added the template

7. Overall: This is quite close to GA standard, mainly just some copyedits left to do - S

   Pass/Fail:

Thank you

The Night Watch (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@

The Night Watch: almost there! There are still some copyedits and one reference to fix. If you think I'm out of line with any of these, please tell me with a rationale. All the best, Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 08:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@

The Night Watch (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your swift alterations. I will pass this now, congratulations! All the best, Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 17:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]