Talk:Animal Crossing: New Horizons/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 17:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one on. Ping me if I'm not back by next week. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I've had a look through the article. Here's what stood out.

General/lead

Given that the co-op gameplay image shows the cylindrical world design, do we really need two near-identical images? We can just merge appropriate parts of the captions into the main gameplay image. Or so it seems to me.

Done I'm a sucker for images, but I do agree the gameplay image also represents what the second image is trying to convey. Removed.

In the lead, I don't think we need those notes about what place the game is in terms of sales numbers, since you link to lists that readers can check. Also, it being the fifteenth best-selling title in history, is there a source for that?

Done That's fair, those notes seemed a little crufty to me anyways.

Gameplay

Almost the entire third paragraph seems to use only two citations. Do those citations have all that information?

Done. From what I remember, a couple months ago when I first began working on this article, I saw that the gameplay section was very crufty. I rewrote, with intentions of "adding references later", only to go on a hiatus and return thinking this was already cited. It also seems like someone made large edits that elaborated on animal collecting to a beyond-needed degree, so I did some copyediting as well.

Development

The image includes Katsuya Eguchi... I can't find any mention of him in the infobox, or anywhere in the article. Why is he here? What role did he fill for this game in particular? What did he contribute?

Done The source in the image caption cites him as one of the games' directors. I went ahead and added his name to the infobox and some more info in development.

I don't think that quote box is necessary.

Done, and oh my god this is too funny to ignore. I use PMTOK as my example article, and often I will borrow coding from it (such as templates) because I'm too lazy to write it out again. Apparently I never replaced the Paper Mario reference when I used the quotebox from that article. I can't believe that went so long unnoticed!

Reception

On the whole I'm scpetical of how the reception section's been formatted and how the sources are distributed. There's little commentary on different elements from individual critics, an inconsistency of saying who said what for each website, there's a lack of general cited consensus, and a feeling like we're having to take some of the statemetns there on trust. I'll only include a couple of examples, but they should help illustrate.

Example: "Critics praised the ability to place furniture virtually anywhere, and most agreed it was a necessary change of pace in the series." This sentence is entirely uncited, not even a few citations showing these different opinions. The citations only begin with more specific elements after this point. It's the kind of structure I'd expect to see on a Wikia.

"Critics from GameSpot and Game Informer praised the creative freedom and control offered by the game,[62]" - You only use one ref, and the following part of the sentence doesn't use either.

Working I definitely agree that (looking back now) I didn't give this section the justice it deserved. Back when I was actively working on the article a user made some good faith, yet poor, edits to this section. I jumped the gun too quickly and reverted it and without question, while it was just a case of a non-native speaker. Ferret disciplined me about it, and still not knowing what I did wrong somehow, fought him over it a bit. Whoops! I took a break from this article after that. Give me some time to rewrite this and I'll have it looking nicer.

Done.

The Sales bits are rather disjointed being broken up like that.

Done Organized into debut sales and total sales paragraphs.

The entire Award text paragraph is uncited. Do we really need it, since there's a table?

Working Per WP:VG/AWARDS, some prose to discuss notable awards is good; for the references, I guess past me thought that the content below was already cited, so it didn't need it? I'm now thinking that theory isn't the best, so I'll go back and add refs to it.

Done.

References

Is Nookfriends reliable? I don't know the website.

Done, if I knew this was here it would have been long gone.

Refs 51 and 63 are the same source.

Done? I moved sources around and now I can't find which one this was referring to. I may have ultimately gotten rid of it during this, though.

4Players, Destructoid VideoGamer aren't used at all aside from the score. Can it?

Working

Done, included 4Players. I removed Destructoid and VideoGamer due to prior problems I've had with their quality on other reviews.

@Panini!: That's what stood out. There might be more later. I'll put this article on hold so edits can be made. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProtoDrake, thanks for the review! I'll admit some of the stuff here stood out even to me as well. The article undergoes a lot of editor attention and is changed often, and some stuff from lesser experienced editors seemed to have slipped under my radar, such as some of the stuff you pointed out here. Example: Nookfriends? *throws nearby object* Who put that in there?! Currently, I'm doing a quick overhaul of my very first article contributions, so I will return to this tomorrow and hopefully fulfill everything by then. Panini!^🥪 17:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: Just a ping. Nothing's really been happening for some time. Are you still able to do the edits? --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for checking in with me. I've been busy recently with a lot of writing outside Wikipedia, and any time I had available I, ironically, played New Horizons instead of here due to the writing burnout I was having. The work has died down, though, so I'll work on finishing this today. All that's left is Reception, really. Panini!^🥪 11:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProtoDrake, while I'm wrapping up the Reception section, you commented on there may be more later. Do you spot anything else? I'll also ping you when I finish completely. Panini!^🥪 13:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: My one final issue would be the image in the "Art and graphics", which includes a Famitsu logo in the image. Is there a clean alternative? Not an absolute killer, but I'd rather have a clean image there. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProtoDrake, ah, good eye! I wanted to find a better image in general that's higher quality but this is the only real one I could find. I'm already annoyed by its quality, but I could crop it out if you'd like. Unless if you can find one out there yourself you think would be better that I also missed? Panini!^🥪 15:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: I looked, and couldn't find anything without the Famitsu mark. If you want to keep it, I'd suggest cropping it and saying so in the image file's summary. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProtoDrake,

Done. Panini!^🥪 21:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: I don't see anything major. Probably needs some different kinds of work if you want to take it further, but this one I'll be happy to promote to GA. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]