Talk:Platform game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good article Platform game has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article was previously selected for Gaming Collaboration of the week.
CVG To-do:

Good Article Review

Contents

[edit] Super Mario Bros.

The caption on the second image states Super Mario Bros. is the best selling video game of all time. This seems likely to become potentially outdated, if not already. Perhaps 'as of (date)' should be added to prevent this? - AlKing464 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

::It's not likely to become obsolete any time soon. According to the 1999 Guiness Book of World Records it had sold more than 40 million copies on NES alone. That's more than GTA3, Vice City, San Andreas, and Halo 2 combined, and well over double the nearest runner up. I don't see it changing any time soon. Frogacuda 06:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • arguably
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: recognize (A) (British: recognise), realize (A) (British: realise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), traveled (A) (British: travelled), any more (B) (American: anymore), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid using contractions like: wasn't, didn't, wasn't, wasn't, wouldn't, didn't, isn't, didn't, wasn't, wasn't, wasn't.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Needs a lot more references before it's GA worthy M3tal H3ad 06:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination

I've had a look at the article but the main issue I can see is a lack of citations in parts. Have a look at the list an I'll try adding some fact tags. There shouldn't be a mass of them but it'll need a few

  • It is well written?

(a) the prose is excellent fantastically written article, the grammar is correct, and the structure is clear at first reading.

(b) the structure is logical, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; Done where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles); Done

(c) It generally complies with the Wikipedia Manual of style; specifically, it follows the Article lead guideline (unless it is too short to have a lead), Article layout guideline, Jargon guideline, Words to avoid using guideline, How to write about Fiction guideline, and List incorporation. Done

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided. Done

  • It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

(b) the citation of its sources is essential, and while the use of inline citations are not mandatory, they are highly desirable, in particular for longer articles. Unambiguous citations of reliable sources are necessary for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

  • It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic; Done

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia). Done

It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias; Done

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic. Done

  • It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content. Done
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions; Done

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status. Done

(c) any non-free images have a fair use rationale NES Super Mario Bros.png, Alpha_waves.gif, Bug for sega saturn.png, N64 Super Mario 64 shifting sand land.jpg, TheLostVikings.png, Contra (arcade game).png, Another World 1.PNG, Dodokodon ingame.png and Knight lore 4.gif has no fair use rationale

I know the fair use bit looks a lot but that and the cites are the main prolbems. The OR is mainly for me as I need to check a few points before I sign them off but I'm pretty sure they'll be alright.

It's fantastically written and should this pass GA I'd consider nominating for FA straight away but the cites and pics need sorting firs. Drop me a line on my talk page if you want. BigHairRef | Talk 13:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the praise. I can take some original screenshots of those games for fair use purposes. A few of the things marked original research are simply intuitive statements (like, for example, it's obvious that a genre is not defined at its onset; logically it cannot be), but I'll try to bolster some of the other things with a few more refs.Frogacuda 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, BHR, I'm just going to mention one more thing. The lead should have an image. Take a look at almost any GA or FA, and you'll see that they have an image at the top-right of the article. I know that platform games are a very broad category, but surely you can find an image that works regardless of type. Just a suggestion. Green451 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I took new screens for all images that I didn't add personally and added fair use rationales, so that should be fine now. I added some more refs. I have a few more to take care of, but I'll do it tomorrow.Frogacuda 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The prose is terrible, every paragraph is choppy and does'nt lead on from the previous example: Donkey Kong had a sequel in Donkey Kong Junior.(makes no sense) There was a third game in the series, but it wasn't a platformer.(do we need to know that?) It was succeeded by the 2-player cooperative Mario Bros.(new content introduced with no flow at all) This title, along with Chack'n Pop, laid the ground work for Bubble Bobble,(reference) which, in turn, influenced many of the single-screen platformers that would follow (see: Comical Action Game for more info).(see also shouldn't be in mid sentence, needs a reference also.) M3tal H3ad 07:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence is the same as saying "They had a savior in Jesus." It's a perfectly normal way of saying that thought. Like, if I say "You have a friend in me," it doesn't mean that I have consumed a companion of yours and he literally dwells within me. I'm a professional writer and copy editor, and there's nothing wrong with that sentence. Also, you say there's no flow, and yet, it follows the series game by game completely logically, and leads into the way that the CAG sub-genre emerged. Donkey Kong 3 is mentioned only to explain how the evolution leads directly from Jr into Mario Bros. Parenthetical statements do, generally, fall in mid-sentence, also. You're just wrong on this one. Frogacuda 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Right quick summary of where we're up to. Firstly I'm afriad I'll have to disagree with you M3tal H3d. I think the whole thing is one of the best written articles I've seen in some time. (I've only been registered for a few months but I've been around longer). THe main problem is the technichal details which are no less important but make the article more verifyable etc. As far as the pic was concerned I was using the rationale in the criteria that not having them dosen't necessarily prevent GA but had it been a FA nom I'd definitely have agreed with you. Right to business.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


Minor point remaining is the {{who}}tag in the Platformers into the present section leading to the '?' for 2c. I'd advise binning it personally it's a bit weasally. Only remaining real issue is the lack of a definition for a proto platformer. All we're told is that they came before platformers and not what features they lack that platform, a link to a wiki article would do although a citation would be musch better along with a brief description. I'd advise binning it personally it's a bit weasally. Otherwise all issues sorted. I'm impressed with the amount of work that's gone in tbh after the number of cites that were needed. The only real improvement I would suggest would be a slightly larger lead image, a slightly more dispassionate (NPOV) summaries for the pics and add something like for illustrational purposes only to the fair use images. If that were done I'd seriously suggest nominating for FA. I'll take a look back soon! BigHairRef | Talk 17:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Proto-platformer" wasn't intended as a proper term for a genre, it's just the term I used for very early ancestors of platformers that don't really fall into any other categories (it's short for prototypical platformer, obviously). To be honest, I coined the term myself assuming that its meaning would be easily and intuitively understood. Is it really a problem?Frogacuda 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a major one but strictly speaking it should mean that the GA nomination fails on the OR front as you've just said you've coined the term yourself. It's confusing to me at the very least and I've been playing games for 90% of my life. The problem was I looked at it and thought right he means a platformer with bits missing but if you've never heard of a platform game you might wander what it's on about. I'd feel better about having it changed or defined a little better but I'll still rate as GA. Just from an outside viewpoint, IMO you'll get no where near FA with that in despite the quality of the artilce as a whole, it'll bring the rest of it down. It'll save work in the future if you change it now but good work on the article. Go for FA. BigHairRef | Talk 00:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Chronology of significant platform games

This list has always been a bit of a sticking point. Now that the article is much more complete, the list is probably unneccessary, so I've removed it.

[edit] Copyedit(s)

Should probably have mentioned this earlier, but my main intent here is to tighten the prose as an FA candidate. Mostly, I'm going to be trying to remove unnecessary words, rephrase where I think a sentence might be unclear, and replace elements I think might be too casual in tone ("whiz through the levels," for instance). This process does sometimes make things sound choppier, so go ahead and continue passing over my own pass. ^_^ Shimeru 06:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes some subtleties get lost in editing. For things that I felt didn't quite work I've been trying to look at why you changed them and find something that addresses that as well as preserves what I was trying to communicate, rather than doing a straight revert. I appreciate another voice on the copy editing front. Hopefully it'll pass, but we haven't been getting alot of voices on the review :/ Frogacuda 05:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it's quite ready yet. The prose still needs some work, which's why I've been trying to copyedit it. (Unfortunately, I have very little free time just now with which to do so, so I'm going at it a section at a time.) It could probably use a couple more citations too. I've elected not to support or oppose it until I've had a shot at improving it. There's a chance it could slip through the cracks, so to speak; the best thing for it would be to continue improving it and renominate it in a month or two, making sure any previous objections have been fully addressed. Shimeru 21:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Long tail

In what must count as a classic example of the long tail with respect to computer games...

This reference is poorly written and, I think, factually wrong. I would change it but what with the award and all,...jcp 12:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/l/a/Talk%7EPlatform_game_1aac.html"