Talk:Golden Sun: The Lost Age/GA1

GA Review

This is just a placeholder, I'll be giving the article a good read-through in due course. Someoneanother 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK let's roll. No problems with article stability, initial glance reveals a well-referenced article with a broad scope, this should be a painless process.

Images

• Fair use rationales could do with specific rationales as to why they are being used in the article, IE not just to show the subject but to actually show 'blah'.
  • This article was written a long time ago, I believe before fair-use rationales were required. I'll get to work on that first. Consider it done. --haha169 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Technically, however, the text caption is quite enough. --haha169 (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead

• "which augment the character's powers." Shouldn't that be "characters'" as in plural?
  • Yep, in which case, the apostrophe should be moved after the "s". Got it. --haha169 (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• The reception information in the lead is virtually non-existent, could it be expanded to include a couple of key points brought forward by multiple reviewers?
  • Well, VG standard dictates that the lead shouldn't include specific examples of reviews, only aggregate reviews and such. --haha169 (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• "the game ranks as the eighth best Game Boy Advance title of 2003 and the 22nd best GBA game of all time" According to who? It's a specific and strong assertion which needs some context.
  • It doesn't have to be cited in the lead because it is already cited in the Reception section. (current ref 54) --haha169 (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • There isn't a universal standard for 22nd/17th/4th best game for X system, what I'm asking is who is saying that, not in terms of sourcing but in terms of this figure coming from somewhere which hasn't been identified in the lead. Someoneanother 01:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok, IGN. I'll add that. --haha169 (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay

• "Golden Sun: The Lost Age allows the player to complete many objectives out of order, and visiting previous locations to advance story elements and complete gameplay objectives is given a stronger emphasis than in the previous game." "out of order" would be a good place to stop that sentence, wouldn't "in the order of their choice" be better?
  • Yes it would. I'll give that sentence a little re-write. Thanks for catching that. --haha169 (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• "players must either push pillars to construct hoppable paths.." "Create" would be better than "contruct", is "hoppable" a word? Even if it is, blech, "navigable" or "negotiable" or another word would be an improvement.
  • Hoppable isn't a word. I've replaced it with negotiable. --haha169 (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• "(of which a host of new spells are introduced in the game)" Is this refering to additional spells in comparison to the first game? If so, please move to a separate sentence, the bracket itself and the text within interrupt the flow.
  • I've removed it - not really important. All games are like this. --haha169 (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• In fact, there are too many brackets here. For instance, in the battle subsection: "If all the player's characters (when the characters you use in the top 4 is downed, the characters not in the top 4 slots jump into battle) are downed by reducing their hit points to zero, it is considered “Game Over”, and the party is returned to the last village that the player visited and suffers a monetary penalty." The brackets are really distracting, and there's also a "you" as opposed to "the player" in there. This suggests that gameplay needs another read-through by editors. Please do so, afterwards I'll take another look at this section.
  • I've removed the brackets or integrated them into the sentence. Most of the brackets are seemingly useless detail, anyway. --haha169 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis

• Under the setting subsection I notice that the four elements are listed with their corresponding two materials in brackets again, considering this has already been done in gameplay can these duplicate brackets go?
  • Well, that's debatable. Its best to leave it in twice to avoid "jargon" issues at FAC; and they are cracking down on this especially hard on VG articles. --haha169 (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, consider it resolved. Someoneanother 01:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• "His younger sister, Jenna," This sentence goes on and on, could it be broken down a little please?
  • ...There really isn't any way to do so. If you could come up with a suggestion, but the plot is just that those 3 people were kidnapped. --haha169 (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• "their soon-to-be-found companion Piers" he can't be soon-to-be found if he's already sailing with them, how about "new" instead?
  • Good idea. --haha169 (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• "they learn a shocking truth about Alchemy's true" Shock, horror, judgemental wording!
  • ?? I don't understand what you're trying to say here. --haha169 (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Heh, sorry. 'A shocking truth' sails close to being a judgement (even though the characters are doubtless shocked), the nature of the discovery is such that the reader doesn't really need to be told that it is shocking. Someoneanother 01:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • But I like adjectives. They give the words spice. Ok then, but "about" should stay in or else the sentence becomes a fragment. --haha169 (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• "But when Isaac's pursuing party enters the lighthouse, they are trapped and ambushed by the vengeful Mars Adept Warriors, Karst and Agatio (Menardi was Karst's sister, and Saturos was Agatio's friend), and Felix comes to assist Isaac and battle Karst and Agatio off." I'm not a big fan of 'buts' when they're not explicitly needed, in this case Isaac and co's entrance isn't related to Felix and co's entrance. Again there's a bracket and interrupted sentence flow, some rewording and possibly splitting please? "battling them off" doesn't sit right, "repel" or "defeat" would be preferable.
  • I've split the section, and re-worded the end. But I still think the "but" should stay. --haha169 (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• "After a session of grief, they gather the resolve" this doesn't sit right either, you wouldn't describe grieving as a 'session of grief'. "Gather the resolve" seems fanciful, could you try something else?
  • Like what? Fanciful words = prose, and prose = high-quality articles. Btw, I changed to "short session of mourning".--haha169 (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It depends on exactly what happened, does this session involve them talking amongst themselves (a conversation)? Or does time pass (a mourning period)? Something along the lines of "after the characters come to terms with their loss, they resolve to..." ?
• "He soon finds out he got more than he bargained for" Ditto, smacks of 'story time'. Describing the event itself would remove the need for this.
  • Ok, I fixed that. --haha169 (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• "they tragically discover that the Wise One tricked them into murdering none other than the parents of Isaac and Felix." Again it's judgemental wording, discovering they've slain their own parents doesn't need to be qualified with "tragically". "None other" is a little theatrical in the context, as if to add a little 'whoop'. Er, how exactly is it that they've managed to butcher two characters' parents and yet they were a multi-headed dragon a minute ago? There's a transition there which needs explaining. Someoneanother 01:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I changed it to "When the party of Adepts slay the dragon, they discover that the Wise One had magically transformed Isaac and Felix's parents in the dragon - who is now dead." I think the ending a little awkward, any ideas? --haha169 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • How about "When the party of Adepts have slain the dragon, they are informed by the Wise One that Isaac and Felix's parents had been transformed into the beast." ? Someoneanother 10:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Nice. You're an amazing copyeditor, you know that? I'll change that immediately. I also added a little extra at the end, just to make it clearer.--haha169 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, though I would like to give that Gameplay another look once it's been tinkered with. Nice work so far. Someoneanother 22:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't the time to do Gameplay right at this moment. I'll do it tonight, or if Fuchs gets to it before me. --haha169 (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't apologize, your time is your own. I have to sleep now myself, thanks for what you've done. Someoneanother 01:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your comments. I'll tackle the Gameplay section tomorrow morning. Thanks for your comments! --haha169 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Recap

Virtually there now, it's just the Djinni subheading in gameplay and one other thing:

• In plot "After a short session of mourning" > "After a short period of mourning" It's that particular word, I associate session with appointments or predetermined periods of time.
• "as well as what psynergy the character can perform.[11]" Upper-case Psynergy needed.
• "In the game, Djinn can either be “turned on” or “turned off”." Gracious! I'd steer well-clear of that expression around sentient characters, "activated or deactivated" sits better anyway. The problem with this statement is that it's saying "these things are either one thing or the other" without explaining what these two states actually are. Could you explain?
  • Resting, for use, ... etc. I've replaced the words.
• "When a Djinni is "Set" to a character" try "partnered with", no speech marks needed.
• "As there is a grand total of seventy-two Djinn encompassing the four elements that can be mixed and matched to the eventual eight characters in seemingly any manner, a large array of possible class setups for all eight characters are potentially available, allowing an expanded variety of combat options.[11]" This section is very wordy, I'd suggest something like: "A total of seventy-two Djinn encompassing the four elements are available. These can mixed and matched with the eight unique player-characters in any combination, producing a wide array of possible combinations with different combat abilities."
  • I actually like that sentence. The wordy one isn't much longer than your suggestion, but it relays more information. --haha169 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• "In combat, a player can use.." This sentence could actually be joined with the following sentence via a comma.
  • ?? I don't think that will work out so well. --haha169 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• "healing/restoration spells" I'd just get rid of restoration, there's no real difference when looking at the game from this distance.
• "After a successful invoke, the Djinni shifts to "Standby" mode until it is "Set" on the character again. While on standby, the Djinn do not contribute to character classes, but can be used for Summon Sequences, where the player summons a powerful elemental monster." this would need to be brought inline with the changed terms suggested above, IE "Set" = partnered with. Can you think of something a little less machinelike than "standby"?
  • I've changed the entire structure of the sentence. --haha169 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• "and also the riskiest" "and the most dangerous to perform".
  • Is there really a difference?--haha169 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• "it must take any number of turns " if this means "must recover for a number of turns" please clarify.
• "each of which must be earned (some found by defeating extra bosses) individually in the game.[11]" > "each of which must be earned individually, for instance some are acquired by defeating optional bosses."

That seems to be it, basically it's about the "Set" type terminology and textflow. Someoneanother 13:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the issues, and left a more detailed description under the more complicated ones.--haha169 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass

Thank you for your work on the article, The Lost Age is now a Good Article. Someoneanother 23:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• gasp* Thanks! Your criticisms point out so much stuff in need of work for FA, and it has been incredibly valuable. I haven't had such a lengthy GAN in a long time. :) Thanks for taking your time to review this article. --haha169 (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • You're very welcome, thank you for you patience during the process. GA is as good an opportunity as any for the flow of text to be eyeballed, so I like to use the opportunity. Someoneanother 18:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree completely. Sometimes, its the only chance since Peer Reviews aren't consistent in how many people review. --haha169 (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)