Συζήτηση:Star Fox Adventures/GA1
Από Γνωσιακή Βάση Υπηρεσιών και Διαδικασιών του Δημοσίου Τομέα
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 16:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Ayy, I'm back (long story), and feel horrible for the large backlog here, so I'll review this before some errands later today. Tezero (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Comments:
- Dinosaur Planet image rationale is iffy; I'd especially expect more coverage of how this differed from the final product to justify its use
- That image and the screenshot should also be reduced in size; 100,000 total pixels or fewer is the standard.
- "the similarities of Rare's anthropomorphic designs to Nintendo's Fox McCloud design" - only Sabre's design was similar to Fox, or the entire cast reminded them of Star Fox 's?
- "Rare released MP3s from the unreleased game" - full-length songs or just teaser clips? Were they available for download or only embedded into sites?
- Limited full length songs, Grant Kirkhope has an amazing site where he released almost all of his audio work for Rare, but he took down David Wise's work from there because they fell out or something. Anyway, I've re-worded JAGUAR
- Penultimate paragraph of Development needs a citation
- Same with the last one of Reception (there's even a tag - did you forget to cover this one or did someone else add it after you nominated?)
- How annoying. I did add a citation there before I nominated but somebody thought they could be helpful and removed it. I can't find it any more because the link is dead and I used the Wayback Machine to get it, so I removed the entire claim of them sarcastically giving the game a high score JAGUAR 19:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- The archived version of the original NGC review is still in the article. What is astonishing here is the fact that Jaguar obviously never read it. Long before Jaguar ever edited this page, the following text was already present: "UK publication NGC magazine awarded the game 72%, which some fans speculated was due to bitterness over Rare's sale to Microsoft. Several issues later, NGC sarcastically published a score of 98%, which readers could cut out and place over the original if they chose to. This did not indicate a new score for the game." Jaguar found the archived review and blindly used it to source all of those assertions, even though it said nothing about the sarcastic higher score from several issues in the future. If Jaguar had any familiarity whatsoever with the subject he was writing about, he would have known that NGC didn't score the game with percentages, and he would not have have accused others of deleting his "source."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Last sentence of Gameplay concerning critic reviews isn't necessary
- "General Pepper forbids Fox from using any sort of blaster, quoting" - from whom does he take the quote? If it's just him saying it, "quoting" is not the appropriate word
- Gameplay could use more detail - what kinds of enemies does he fight? Is the game divided into levels - if so, how many? What kinds of terrain does he explore?
- Is there a multiplayer mode or any other alternate mode? I technically own the game, but have barely ever played it since I got it during a hectic time in my life and never cared much to pick it up afterward.
- Most of the citations could use authors, e.g. who wrote the IGN review?
- Be consistent about italicizing/linking publishers, e.g. IGN being linked and italicized in one of its later appearances down the reference list, but never elsewhere
That should be good, so attend to these and you'll have yourself a GA. Tezero (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review Tezero, and welcome back! I did wonder where you went off to. I think I've addressed everything, if you would like to take a look? Most of the references are old and existed here before I refurbished the article, but it was good fun almost writing the development section from scratch. I strongly recommend playing this game if you get the chance, the gameplay and plot is immense just like Ocarina of Time and I loved it when I finished this in 2010. This was Rare's last good game before these capitalising, greedy, antagonistic pigs brought Rare and ruined them. Sorry about that. Let me know what you think? JAGUAR 19:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- As Jaguar freely admits, he actually improved this article very little before nominating. As a second opinion, this nomination should fail on the "well-written" criteria alone. Much of the prose borders on incomprehensible. There is no focus, no organization, and run-on sentences galore. The reception section is skimpy, but if that is no deal-breaker, consider how the instruction booklet is being wildly misused.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- TheTimesAreAChanging, I can't in all good conscience fail a GAN once I've picked it up and not seen many major initial problems, but I have seen some less-than-perfect prose while copyediting. Your input is as valuable as mine, of course, so in what ways is the manual being misused? I've removed a few bits that were almost certainly OR and cited to it, like comparisons to the Zelda games (God, would that ever be bad business), but since the link's not loading for me, I can't investigate further at the moment. Regarding Reception, what areas need more detail? Tezero (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do with Gameplay and Reception. Though I don't think this would come close to failing due to the "well-written" criteria, on that note I don't see anything that is incomprehensible. I don't think TheTimesAreAChanging looked at the second page of the history, otherwise I'm not sure why he said I didn't improve the article before nominating. I'm now on the search of some sources for Gameplay, and I do agree that it should be re-written so it's less focused on comparisons with Zelda JAGUAR 19:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Jaguar, you are the one who just admitted most of the material was already in the article prior to your edits. I am well aware of the 2,000 bytes that you contributed personally. Tezero, I appreciate your attempts to fix the mess, but how much of Jaguar's work do you really want to do for him? Gabriel Yuji is already pointing out another bit of unsourced original research, and there is likely to be more where that came from. Case in point: There is no EGM source to back up the statements attributed to the publication, although a different source is being used in its place. Nominating an article in this state is ridiculous and unacceptable, but no-one ever wants to fail Jaguar for doing it time and again. As for "Reception": IGN isn't calling the combat a "beneficial addition", Casamassina is referring to the unmentioned automatic lock-on feature. Isn't the problem obvious? Right now, all we have is one paragraph of vague praise, a bunch of sentences from IGN on the misue of the Star Fox license, an unsourced comparison to Soul Calibur, and unsourced speculation that the politics of the Microsoft buy-out influenced the lower review scores. Almost nothing on the game itself, on the design of the puzzles or the team dynamic with Prince Tricky. Bizarrely, only the "Gameplay" section tells us "it received particular attention for real-time rendering the movement of the characters' fur."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have re-written the reception section, taking out all claims of a EGM review and also making more of a use for the NGC Magazine entry. I have also removed all unsourced claims and original research I could find in there, as well as removing most of the Zelda-comparisons in the gameplay section (only that of the opening remains). Anything that has also been unsourced or considered original research I have removed elsewhere, including the Microsoft buyout influence etc. I have also expanded the reception section with use of more comprehensive reviews instead of non-existent ones. I would like to gather some opinions on this before this GAN reaches a conclusion. JAGUAR 19:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Jaguar, you are the one who just admitted most of the material was already in the article prior to your edits. I am well aware of the 2,000 bytes that you contributed personally. Tezero, I appreciate your attempts to fix the mess, but how much of Jaguar's work do you really want to do for him? Gabriel Yuji is already pointing out another bit of unsourced original research, and there is likely to be more where that came from. Case in point: There is no EGM source to back up the statements attributed to the publication, although a different source is being used in its place. Nominating an article in this state is ridiculous and unacceptable, but no-one ever wants to fail Jaguar for doing it time and again. As for "Reception": IGN isn't calling the combat a "beneficial addition", Casamassina is referring to the unmentioned automatic lock-on feature. Isn't the problem obvious? Right now, all we have is one paragraph of vague praise, a bunch of sentences from IGN on the misue of the Star Fox license, an unsourced comparison to Soul Calibur, and unsourced speculation that the politics of the Microsoft buy-out influenced the lower review scores. Almost nothing on the game itself, on the design of the puzzles or the team dynamic with Prince Tricky. Bizarrely, only the "Gameplay" section tells us "it received particular attention for real-time rendering the movement of the characters' fur."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do with Gameplay and Reception. Though I don't think this would come close to failing due to the "well-written" criteria, on that note I don't see anything that is incomprehensible. I don't think TheTimesAreAChanging looked at the second page of the history, otherwise I'm not sure why he said I didn't improve the article before nominating. I'm now on the search of some sources for Gameplay, and I do agree that it should be re-written so it's less focused on comparisons with Zelda JAGUAR 19:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- TheTimesAreAChanging, I can't in all good conscience fail a GAN once I've picked it up and not seen many major initial problems, but I have seen some less-than-perfect prose while copyediting. Your input is as valuable as mine, of course, so in what ways is the manual being misused? I've removed a few bits that were almost certainly OR and cited to it, like comparisons to the Zelda games (God, would that ever be bad business), but since the link's not loading for me, I can't investigate further at the moment. Regarding Reception, what areas need more detail? Tezero (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- As Jaguar freely admits, he actually improved this article very little before nominating. As a second opinion, this nomination should fail on the "well-written" criteria alone. Much of the prose borders on incomprehensible. There is no focus, no organization, and run-on sentences galore. The reception section is skimpy, but if that is no deal-breaker, consider how the instruction booklet is being wildly misused.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of the reception now, Tezero? JAGUAR 15:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Only two things jump out at me, Jaguar: who else but Cassamassina is included in "The voice acting was criticised by some", and why is he sometimes referred to just as "IGN"? Tezero (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- I see why they both sound confusing. NGC Magazine is the other entry that criticised the voice acting as well as Cassamassina. I have re-worded it to "the voice acting was viewed negatively". I have corrected other uses of "IGN" to Casamassina as it turned out it was his review that was referenced, and not the other one. There is another IGN reference in there allocated to "IGN staff", but it is not used in the reception section. I hope that cleared things up? JAGUAR 13:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- TheTimesAreAChanging, any additional thoughts? Jaguar purports to have addressed your concerns. Tezero (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Tezero, I don't have the time to spotcheck this entire article, but I will tell you one thing. To respond to your question, I was going to select one badly-written paragraph as an example of how the prose could use improvement. What follows is the example I had in mind:
- "With the Star Fox theme established, Rare begun re-working the game for the upcoming GameCube and was met with little interference from Nintendo. During development, the team was invited to Nintendo's headquarters in Kyoto to discuss progress and certain changes; with in return Star Fox creator Takaya Imamura came to stay at Rare's Twycross studio to oversee development.[15] Tossell admitted that "without a doubt", Nintendo strengthened their relationship through trust and respect, despite Nintendo only owning 49% of the company at the time.[14]"
- This is badly written. There was "little interference", yet all we hear about is interference; if we knew that Imamura only stayed for a month, and that these instances were exceptions to the rule, our perspective might be different. What does "with in return" mean? Why "admitted"? Why the "despite" in the last sentence? (That Nintendo only owned 49% of Rare hardly contradicts Tossell's point: "Technically Rare was independent...This contrasts sharply with how it is now where Microsoft owns the whole company.") In looking this over, however, I also noticed that the last sentence is sourced to the wrong article! Are there additional invalid citations awaiting discovery? Perhaps. If you are going to promote a Jaguar article, you must accept a certain amount of responsibility for the prerequisite fact-checking.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think there has been a misunderstanding with that paragraph, TheTimesAreAChanging. I'm going by on what the source said, and more specifically on what Tossell said. The development of Dinosaur Planet was met with interference from Nintendo, not Star Fox Adventures. The paragraphs opens with ""With the Star Fox theme established, Rare begun re-working the game for the upcoming GameCube and was met with little interference from Nintendo" - meaning that when they changed to Star Fox under the orders of Nintendo, they did not interfere with development any more. Imamura stayed at Rare's studio for a month to oversee development yet still they were met with little interference, I don't see any contradiction in that. I also don't understand what you mean by "What does 'with in return', 'admitted' and 'despite' mean"? They're just words! Rare staff went to Kyoto, and in return Nintendo sent Imamura to Rare. Tossell admitted that "without a doubt" Rare strengthened their relationship etc, I don't see what's wrong with the word "admitted", but if you want I can change it to "said", which sounds quite unencyclopaedic. I'm not trying to squirm my way out of this or anything because if there was something wrong with the paragraph, believe me I would change it. I honestly see no bad writing in that paragraph. I'll see what I can do with that source. JAGUAR 14:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- You're failing even basic measures of competence here, Jaguar. I only asked you what the phrase "with in return" (?) is supposed to mean. If you think that the phrase "with in return" is grammatically correct–perhaps even a shining example of sparkling prose–you are wrong. On your other points:
- "I'll see what I can do with that source." Do you not see the issue? Source 14 is where source 15 is supposed to be. Are you at all familiar with the sources in question?
- "Stated" is encyclopedic. Tossell is not confessing to a crime! If you want stronger language, note that Tossell "praised" Nintendo (which is actually supported by the source).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have rephrased certain parts of the paragraph, changing "with in return" and replacing "admitted" with "stated" (which I wish I would have thought of earlier). I have replaced ref 14 with ref 15, although I'm worried about a citation overkill in that paragraph. I recognised the issue straight away but I did not have the chance to return to this GAN until tonight. I'll do a brush up on whatever less-than-perfect prose I can find. JAGUAR 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think there has been a misunderstanding with that paragraph, TheTimesAreAChanging. I'm going by on what the source said, and more specifically on what Tossell said. The development of Dinosaur Planet was met with interference from Nintendo, not Star Fox Adventures. The paragraphs opens with ""With the Star Fox theme established, Rare begun re-working the game for the upcoming GameCube and was met with little interference from Nintendo" - meaning that when they changed to Star Fox under the orders of Nintendo, they did not interfere with development any more. Imamura stayed at Rare's studio for a month to oversee development yet still they were met with little interference, I don't see any contradiction in that. I also don't understand what you mean by "What does 'with in return', 'admitted' and 'despite' mean"? They're just words! Rare staff went to Kyoto, and in return Nintendo sent Imamura to Rare. Tossell admitted that "without a doubt" Rare strengthened their relationship etc, I don't see what's wrong with the word "admitted", but if you want I can change it to "said", which sounds quite unencyclopaedic. I'm not trying to squirm my way out of this or anything because if there was something wrong with the paragraph, believe me I would change it. I honestly see no bad writing in that paragraph. I'll see what I can do with that source. JAGUAR 14:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- TheTimesAreAChanging, any additional thoughts? Jaguar purports to have addressed your concerns. Tezero (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I see why they both sound confusing. NGC Magazine is the other entry that criticised the voice acting as well as Cassamassina. I have re-worded it to "the voice acting was viewed negatively". I have corrected other uses of "IGN" to Casamassina as it turned out it was his review that was referenced, and not the other one. There is another IGN reference in there allocated to "IGN staff", but it is not used in the reception section. I hope that cleared things up? JAGUAR 13:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
My mind has gone blank. I don't know if there is anything else to do with this article as in my opinion I see no problem with the prose or content. Tezero, what do you think of this article against the GA criteria? I've gone over the Plot and Development sections and I find no prose issues. The Reception section has been paraphrased and is dependent on their reviews, as required. TheTimesAreAChanging, are you happy with the prose? JAGUAR 20:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ultimate responsibility for determining whether the article meets Wikipedia's GA standards or not lies with the first reviewer.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
