Talk:Ever Oasis

Concerns about article quality and GA review thoroughness

It doesn't seem to me like this article passed a proper GA review. The last reviewer doesn't seem to have understood what they were doing, only saying: "This is a Starting article, but it is a good one. It has some info, and it has links and citations and it is on topic, making it a good starting article." They did not know how to pass it, so the nominator passed it on their behalf.

There are evidently many problems with the writing in this article. Take for example the first paragraph in Development.

• Director and producer Koichi Ishii was inspired to create Ever Oasis based on a trip to Egypt a decade earlier. The inspiration for the game came to Ishii during that trip to Egypt. You just repeated yourself.
• Originally conceived as a "compact, playable game", Ever Oasis eventually grew something bigger. "Grew something bigger" And what exactly is meant by this sentence? Is he talking about game length or scope? world size?
• Ishii wanted to try something different from the formula of having players travel through many different areas on a quest to save the world; rather than focusing on character development, the central design goal became protecting and developing the oasis. So Ishii didn't want players to travel between different areas, but instead wanted the game to take place in one area. OK. But what's this about "character development" sandwiched in the middle here?
• He had the concept of a town-managing community but feared it would overlap with Animal Crossing, and so made a effort to differentiate the two. "a effort". And how did he try to differentiate it from Animal Crossing?

I only looked at one paragraph. I would nominate it for GA reassessment, but it seems like the original nominator tried to do so...or is trying and having trouble? I'm not sure what exactly is going on here, so I'm starting with this message. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 01:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@TarkusAB I don’t think I, the person who nominated it can do it for reassessment. I’ve been thinking about just doing a peer review so the quality of this article is assessed properly and I could *hopefully* bring it to FA status in the future. Also, thank you for the suggestions in the Development section. I’ll fix them now. Monathephantom (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@TarkusAB I just submitted the original reassessment for undeletion so this page will actually get a true assessment now. I originally thought you couldnt do that, but oh well. Second thing: I didn't expect the article to be poorly reviewed. Purplemaker randomly reviewed it after i asked someone to review the GAN at the TeaHouse. Regardless, i hope everything goes well for this article as i really like this game and i want this article to be as good as it possibly can. Monathephantom (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. I agree you absolutely deserve a proper GA review! TarkusAB^talk/contrib 04:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, TBH the entire development section needs a major rewrite, it's pretty unfocused. I'll try to fix some of these issues tomorrow. Monathephantom (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I've gone outta my way to delist the article incredibly early. It looks like we're all in agreement that the review was wholly inadequate. toby ^(t)(rw) 19:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Just dropping in to say that since the article's been delisted, this is something that can be expanded without needing relisting immediately, unless Monathephantom prefers to relist immediately. I was interested in taking on the article at one point, and left the sources I gathered on the talk page. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't get disheartened @Monathephantom, overall the article is in pretty decent shape although, in my opinion, it could still use some slight polishing before being re-nominated. (For example, several references are duplicates of each other.) Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 20:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake Likely just gonna rewrite the major issues on this article before thinking of renominating it first. As Tarkus previously stated, this article has a major writing problem that should be addressed first, and the development section is also missing stuff as well. Monathephantom (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2026 (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:Ever Oasis/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Monathephantom (talk · contribs) 16:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: A412 (talk · contribs) 22:06, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:06, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Monathephantom, I'm sorry, given the previously insufficient review, but I'm going to have to quickfail this. This article performed substantially under GA standard for spotcheck - almost every source I checked had verification problems, including quotes that appear to be entirely detached from the actual text in the sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:35, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions and alt text):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

References

References numbers as of this revision.

Spotcheck

• [3] - "aimed higher" does not appear in the source.
• [4] - Fine.
• [6]
  • Each of the three tribal races have distinct weapon types; the spear wielding Darkus, the hammer wielding Serkah and the dual blade wielding Lagora. Enemies have strengths and weaknesses towards them - Neither source 6 nor 7 appears to contain this information.
  • Most negative is a strong superlative. In this case, Metacritic says Slant Magazine has a lower-scoring review: .
• [9] - "a collection of familiar ideas pieced together in a unique way" does not appear in the source.
• [17] - Fine.
• [18] - This source is in Japanese. What is "compact, playable game" a quote from?
• [19]
  • Ever Oasis was difficult to put together from both of its central mechanics, which were dungeon crawling and oasis management. Ishii reflected that even though the original concept of Ever Oasis had been designed logically, developing it proved difficult. - The source does not appear to support this information.
  • "far more people have a 3DS than a Nintendo Switch" is a misquote. Source has "The big reason is that more people own the 3DS than the Switch".
• [22] - A trailer was shown, and mission gameplay was demonstrated; though it was not playable for convention attendees. - The source does not support the last part here. It is silent on whether the game was accessible to attendees.
• [26] - Fine.

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.