Talk:Girl's Garden

Girl's Garden has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 8, 2019. (Reviewed version).

Video games: Sega Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Sega task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants)
Purple Francis (8 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (9 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Girl's Garden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Girl's Garden/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) 21:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start to review this article, I want to point out that this is my first time doing so. I have picked this article over others longer awaiting review because I'm positive that due to its size and limited scope, it is well-suited for a beginner to review. Furthermore, User:TarkusAB seems to be a seasoned editor who clearly knows what he is doing given his history of GA on the topic, so I hope I can provide some assisstance with this review. If any other users wish to give my advice on how to do a proper review, please feel free to contact me, as I appreciate any input.

1. Is it well-written?

In short, yes. Tried to look for any grammar mistakes, errors and the like and could not find any. The layout seems perfectly fine to me. One thing I would suggest though, is removing or replacing the word "cute" from the head section. It seems very vague and clichée to me, thus I would consider it a word to watch. It seems to be taken from one of the sources, but I would suggest moving it into the legacy section as a direct quote if it has to stay.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

Yes, the article is meticulously sourced, I could not find a single claim without verification from reliable sources.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

Yes and no. I understand that this is a very niche game that flew under the radar, yet I wish the game had a section concerning its critical reception. However, I understand that contemporary reviews are hard to come by if they exist at all. Thus, I am willing to believe that the editor most likely did not find any despite his or her best efforts.

As for the gameplay, a little bit more detail, f.e. about the power-ups, would not hurt, but as stated above, if availiable.

Apparently, the girl is named Papri, that could be included along with the name of the boy, if he has one. Also, does the game have a story/narrative, which could be found on the backcover/manual and included here? Again, if availiable.

However, I feel the legacy section could be expanded. The US gamer articles both have some interesting remarks about sexist concepts in the game's design (she does not rescue the boy but only fights for his affection, female dependency etc.) and I would very much argue for that to be included in the article. Also the word "inoffensive" from the review could be included.

4. Is it neutral?

Yes. Again, I would only replace the word cute in the head section.

5. Is it stable?

Yes. Absolutely nothing is going to change here.

6. Is it illustrated?

Yes, sufficiently.

Conclusion

As it stands, I see no reason why this article should not pass. It meets all criteria and seems to present all information availiable. Since all criteria are met and my issues with the article are small things that I can easily fix myself, I have made the decision to be bold and give the article a pass, while including the sexism points and removing the word cute. I will grant the article the new status after I have made the aforementioned improvements. If anybody feels a need to object, please feel free to do so.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DasallmächtigeJ: First, thank you for reviewing the article. Second, I'm not sure I agree with the sexism claims you added to the article. Please let me explain.

It seems the phrases you used to support these claims were:

Mackey:

All in all, it's a cute, simple experience with a somewhat questionable message [...] Girl's Garden comes shockingly close to being a codependent relationship simulator

and

Parish:

Aside from the slightly unusual feature of featuring a female protagonist (though sadly one trying to win the affections of a boy rather than trying to rescue him)

Seems to me that Mackey says that the game's underlying codependent relationship themes are questionable. I don't see how codependent relationships are related to sexism.

Parish gave his dismay that they put the female in a weak role rather than a strong heroic role like male protagonists. So yea he's hinting more closely to sexism here, but he comes short. Note that he also calls the game "inoffensive".

I feel we're not giving a fair WP:NPOV by saying the critics thought the game had sexist undertones. I reworded the article. Let me know your thoughts. TarkusAB^talk 01:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, your rewording sounds fine to me, I just found it important to mention its retrospective reassessment, as 2 out the 3 sources you used here make a point of stressing these aspects.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing all mentions of Girl's Garden as "dating sim." It's... not.

I keep seeing references to Girl's Garden as an example of a dating sim. This is not a justifiable claim. I know it's in the Ars Technica article, mentioned in a glancing blow:

"Significant early dating sims include Girl's Garden and Tenshitachi no gogo, while the Tokimeki Memorial series has been highly popular since its inception in the mid-'90s."

Nevertheless, the claim is not true and doesn't deserve a place in this article.

Girl's Garden is an arcade game with a "win the affection of ____" element present in many games of its era. That does not make it a dating sim any more than, say, Donkey Kong, Popeye, or any other similar action-arcade games. I am editing this article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swanwonder (talk • contribs) 02:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy section

The legacy section as of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girl%27s_Garden&oldid=1108189501 opened with entire paragraph based on a two small paragraphs in articles from USGamer from 2013 [1] and 2016 [2]; two sentences from the first, and one from the second. Why these articles? It makes no sense. It makes even less sense if you go and read the source articles, which aren't actually about the game. It reads as if someone searched for the game online and wanted to shoehorn something from those articles in. The legacy is the launch of YU2's career, the affect the game had on the platform (if any) and influence on other games (if any). 2001:8B0:10BD:39AE:EA6A:64FF:FE39:48DC (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not those articles? USGamer is a reliable source per WP:VG/RS. Is your concern that there is not more commentary from other sources? Might you have an issue with something these critics wrote? Regarding the second point about Naka, I workshopped it a bit. I see I misread "formed". My bad. I like the "headed" wording more. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 09:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]