Talk:Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (NES)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (NES) has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles 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 reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on August 20, 2007.
October 28, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Reference Link needs fixed

Not sure how to do this, but my correction was over ruled and the old page reinstated. (I don't even know why I edit anything on here since someone always thinks they are correct, and if I am not, please explain why I am not.)

The 'edit' in question is regards to this is suppose to be the first Indy movie made into a video game, when 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' came out at least two years prior on the Atari 2600. Am I not correct? Then the statement that Temple of Doom was the first is WRONG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.75.40 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you need to source this change, I can't just take your word for it in defiance of the sourced material. Second of all, you deleting this completely destroys my reference structure, so of course I'm going to revert it. Give me a source that says this. Then I will PROPERLY change the reference so that it doesn't wreck the entire article. Until you can source this, I am going to continue to revert it. Per Wikipedia policy "unsourced material may be reverted at any time." Cheers, CP 03:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the sources: Go here... right on Wikipedia itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark_(video_game), here is one as well: http://www.mobygames.com/game/atari-2600/raiders-of-the-lost-ark. Here is another one: http://www.atariage.com/catalog_page.html?CatalogID=62&currentPage=5, released in 1982, a FULL two years before Temple of Doom. I am old enough to know when I originally bought it... in 1982.

Now if you may, remove that text if you want to make Wikipedia an actual factual reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.75.40 (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I've clarified the material anyhow. The passage is referring to arcade games and the game you refer to was released for the console only, if I'm not mistaken. Hopefully this clears it up? Cheers, CP 00:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry about the trouble and the reaction.

No problem. In addition, I was being careful to avoid attacking you (though I was mad), but I apologize if there were any hard feelings. Per WP:TPG though, it's not a good idea to edit others comments on talk pages, but since your intention was good and it betters the project, I say it's a good time to ignore all rules. Cheers, CP 01:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What needs doing?

Wow. I'd say this is pretty near to GA as it is. The sources, images, neutrality and stability are all pretty much there. It was a really interesting read, though there are still a couple of points before I think you can send it off to GAC:

  • I'm no expert on criterion 1 at any level, but there are still a few things in this department I noticed:
    • Usually, the template goes at the bottom, rather than sandwiched between "references" and "see also". Move the references up to right before "see also", and then you'd be fine in my books.

Y Done Cheers, CP 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    • The age of this game means that the likelihood of there being a useful website is slim, but do see if you can find an external link or two.

Y Done Cheers, CP 23:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a MobyGames link and a HotU link. Una LagunaTalk 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Sweet, thanks! Cheers, CP 23:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The names of review sites are usually italicised. "Top Ten Reviews" doesn't point to anything, and I doubt it ever will or have reason to, so you can probably remove the link pointing to the non-existent article.

Y Done Cheers, CP 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Per WP:CONTEXT do bats, rats, snakes and spiders (and the similar list beforehand) all need links?

Y Done I didn't think so either, not sure why I left them there. Cheers, CP 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Reception section seems a little light, but given the age of the game it'd be understandable if there aren't any more reviews.

Doing... Nothing worthwhile as of yet. I'm going to go ahead and nominate this for GA, but I'll keep an eye out. Cheers, CP 01:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The "edit this page" button suggests reference 3 doesn't fit the reliable source criteria, though depending on how the editing works would affect this (e.g. if the maintainer of the website had to look at the changes before implicating them then it would probably be seen as reliable).

Y Done I checked, and it requires you to submit your changes so that the person who maintains the page can review them before they are posted. Cheers, CP 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC) That's all I can think of for now. Una LagunaTalk 20:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review! Cheers, CP 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Platforms

Why is the lead and the infobox telling it was only released for NES when the MobyGames entry lists all these platforms: Amiga, Amstrad CPC, Apple II, Atari ST, Commodore 64, DOS, MSX, ZX Spectrum? --Mika1h 11:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead doesn't say that it was "only" released for the NES, the first sentence merely implies that the version being focus on is the NES one. In fact, the very next sentence is about how it was originally released as an arcade game. The other parts are mentioned in the first section of the actual article. You are right, though, I should list the different platforms in the infobox, and will do so now. Thanks! Cheers, CP 14:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
But shouldn't the article also discuss these different versions? How they are different from one another and so on. One Good Article criteria is "broad in its coverage", isn't it? --Mika1h 19:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it does discuss the differences between this version and the Arcade version, but yes, not the others. This is an article, however, on the NES version. Perhaps the name of the page should be changed to "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (Nintendo game)?" Cheers, CP 20:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
That would be one solution. Then the arcade game article could talk about other versions and you don't have to worry about them. --Mika1h 20:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to do it at the moment (since I'd need to change the Indiana Jones Games template, the GA nom and everything else that points here), but I do support the move. The NES version has a claim to notability (given the two different versions that were released, that controversy and the almost complete panning of the game), but I do support the move. The other versions are NN and it makes more sense to talk about them in the context of the original game (the arcade version) than this one. Cheers, CP 20:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I moved it. --Mika1h 09:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Cheers, CP 15:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passed as Good Article!

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Nothing bad to say about this article. There was one poorly written sentence that may have been a result of two sentences melded together, but I simply removed the material that didn't make sense. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! What's the original research though? Cheers, CP 01:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)