Jump to content

Talk:Grabbed by the Ghoulies/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Not one I ever played (I don't think I've actually heard of it...) but I'm happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Once there, Cooper checks his map, but is unaware that someone is watching." I'm guessing that they're still outside the mansion at this point? Not a big deal, but slightly jarring.
  • It'd be helpful if it could be clarified what the characters are. I'm guessing they're not just people with funny names, but actually undead of various stripes.
  • I'm guessing Cooper is the player character? This isn't actually specified, as far as I can see.
  • Why have you put "hack and slash" in single quotes?
  • "all Ghoulies in a room" Why the caps? And is that what they're explicitly referred to in the game? Perhaps quote marks would be appropriate, or else perhaps just the more standard "ghoul"?
  • "All combat is maneuvered by a swivel of the control stick in the direction that player chooses to attack." This doesn't really work- could it be rephrased?
  • "Upon completing a Bonus Challenge, the player is awarded with a bronze, silver or gold medal, based on the performance. The player can also earn a platinum medal if they complete a challenge over exceptional difficulty. For every platinum medal earned, a piece of the game's concept art is unlocked. If the player collects all 100 Rare books and earns all 20 platinum medals, the player is given the option to reset the game with Amber unlocked as a playable character." Have you got sources for any of this? I'm worried it could be construed as cruft. (Also, I'm unclear what "The player can also earn a platinum medal if they complete a challenge over exceptional difficulty" means.)
  • The screenshot is used on the basis of a template rationale, which is completely inappropriate. If a screenshot is justified (and that is by no means a given) it is going to need a rationale which explains what that screenshot adds to this article, not just a series of buzzwords.
  • Czar updated the fair use rationale before I could get a chance - I was about to change it a few days ago but the image got deleted for some reason. JAGUAR  14:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the release of Conker's Bad Fur Day in 2001, the game was originally conceived as a name,[4] coming from the slang term for being "grabbed by the testicles".[5]" It's not clear what the Conker stuff has to do with the rest of the sentence, and only serves to confuse when it comes to "The game". I think this sentence should be restructured.
  • Done - removed "After the release of Conker in 2001" as it says the game was rumoured to be the subtitle of the next Conker game later in the sentence. JAGUAR 
  • "Before any details of the game were publicised, it was widely considered that Grabbed by the Ghoulies would be the subtitle to the next Conker the Squirrel game." Weasel words
  • "a larger, non-linear open platformer" This is going to be pretty meaningless to non-gamers- could we have some wikilinks?
  • The first two sentences of the second paragraph of "Development and release" seem to contradict each other (I'm also not keen on the "as to" construction, and "speed up" is a little informal.)
  • " In a retrospective interview, designer Gregg Mayles asserted that Grabbed by the Ghoulies was not inspired by Rare's similar-themed Atic Atac game,[3] but rather the cel-shaded art style and design of the characters were influenced by Hanna-Barbera cartoons." I think "asserted" is a little judgmental, and "but rather" implies (falsely, surely?) that the two are mutually exclusive
  • I see what you mean; I've rephrased the sentence and replaced "asserted" with "stated" and "but rather" with "however". I think that makes it sound more neutral. JAGUAR  14:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the third para of the development section have release dates added? Otherwise, they're in the lead (and unsourced!) but nowhere else. Also, some are missing from the infobox. (While I'm looking there, do you have a source that this is a beat 'em up? Or any other mentioned genre, for that matter? Action adventure sounds reasonable, but survival horror? Silent Hill, this ain't.)
  • Not quite sure about adding release dates in the development section unless it's a "Development and release" section (something I've never even done before on them). If anything, I usually add citations in the infobox regarding release dates, but I'll see what I can do as I plan to expand the development section shortly... JAGUAR  14:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've expanded the development section and added release dates. Feel free to point anything out if there are any more mistakes or contradicting sentences! JAGUAR  15:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The graphics and animation were the most praised aspects of the game." That sounds like OR. Simply "The graphics and animation were praised by critics" would work.
  • "gave the impression of the enemies to be more "endearing"" Odd construction
  • "GameRevolution similarly praised" Personification
  • "comparing it to be sharper and clearer to that of Banjo-Kazooie." This needs to be rephrased
  • "admitted" is a little non-neutral
  • "The camera controls was another criticised aspect of the game, due to both control sticks being used for attack functions." This doesn't work
  • "Despite the mixed reviews and criticism" OR? If you want to expand the paragraph a little, state winners (and/or even other nominees).
  • Your sources look OK (we could quibble about italics and such, but that's explicitly not part of the GA criteria). My one concern is the YouTube link- if that's an official upload, it should probably be "GameSpot (via YouTube)" or something. If it's not official, we have copyright issues.
  • I never like using YouTube as a source, but the initial lack of development sources led me to go to extremes. It is an official (watermarked) GameSpot video, so I've added "GameSpot via YouTube". JAGUAR  14:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your "Video games featuring female protagonists" category is a little generous. Same with the vampire category and Beat em up category.
  • I've removed a few pointless categories, the game isn't a survival horror (it's a game aimed at children!), and Cooper's girlfriend is only unlocked as a playable character after the game is 100% complete, so I've removed that too. JAGUAR  14:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad little article, and I suspect I'll be able to promote once these fixes have been made. I've done a moderate amount of copyediting- please double-check. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking this one up! I admit I haven't played it yet, despite me technically owning it now but I haven't had the time to try it out. Czar has given me an excellent interview, so I can expand the development section hopefully tomorrow. JAGUAR  21:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: I think I've addressed everything. I've expanded the development section thanks to the source czar has given me and have also cut jargon in the gameplay section. Let me know what you think? JAGUAR  16:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks- I'll give it another look through soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments:

  • I'm still not happy with the screenshot rationale. Frankly, that template should be deleted. There's no presumption in favour of non-free screenshots in video game articles, and so a custom rationale, tying that screenshot to this article, is always going to be required.
  • "All combat is performed by the manoeuvre of the direction that player chooses to attack." I'm still not quite clear on what this means.
  • According to the lead, it was pulled from Xbox Live, but this isn't mentioned in the prose. As such, it's unsourced.
  • "GameRevolution" or "Game Revolution"? Italics or no italics? Also, could we perhaps avoid "Game Revolution said" and instead go for something like "Writers for Game Revolution said" or at least "A review in Game Revolution said"?
  • In every single a GAN I always get confused with the spacing of "GameRankings" and "Game Revolution"! Fixed this. I'm unaware if it needs to be italicised, the Game Revolution article doesn't include italics and I've never seen it italicised elsewhere. JAGUAR  23:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The camera controls were another criticised aspect of the game, due to the control sticks being allocated for attack functions. Gifford labelled the "forced shunt" idea as a "terrible drag" which became troublesome during the latter half of the game." I'm struggling with this- likely because camera controls have not previously been mentioned.
  • "Jennings, however, felt that the camera was "fine" and did provide any obstruction" Do you mean that it did not provide obstruction?
  • I think, technically, your YouTube link (for a reference) is not OK, as it's not been uploaded by the copyright holder. However, I do think it's a reliable source, and I'm not sure how you'd cite it otherwise... If there's no other way to access the video and/or the information couldn't be cited elsewhere, I'll turn a blind eye, but do try to work it out if you can.
  • I've removed the YouTube link as I only added it when I had no other sources to use, but now the interview with Gregg Mayles summarises almost every point in the development section. JAGUAR  18:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think beat 'em up belongs in the infobox; it's not a beat 'em up in the sense that Tekken or Mortal Kombat or Soul Calibur are beat 'em ups, and it doesn't seem to be sourced. Hack 'n' slash/action-adventure seems to capture it pretty well.

The article's really coming together well. I've no doubt I'll be happy to promote once these issues are dealt with. (I've done some more copyediting- please double-check.) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot rationale is used throughout the project on thousands of articles. If you think it needs to be changed, that's a discussion for a broader forum than a single GAN. YouTube link should be pulled as the uploader is not GameSpot. archive.org doesn't have it archived either. GR should be in italics per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized" – czar 22:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The template is used on a whopping 49 articles, not thousands. NFCC-compliance is a part of the GA criteria, and so problems with rationales are a perfectly good reason to hold up GA reviews. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like almost all FUR templates, the directions ask that it be substituted. (I only recently started to not substitute recently when no one responded to my question of why it was necessary.) cf. the FUR language used on any recent VG GAN – czar 22:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Template rationales are inappropriate for images of that sort. If there are lots of other non-free images which use inappropriate template rationales, that is a bad thing, but it does not mean that it should be ignored here. (And, for what it's worth, I don't think there's any debate that enforcement of NFC issues is patchy at best at GAC.) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Would it be preferable if I change the rationale template to something this one? I was originally going to change it to a Media data and Non-free use rationale template, but I admit I'm not as well versed in images as some others are. Regarding the YouTube ref, I was going to remove it anyway as the interview with Gregg Mayles provides more than enough information for development (I used the YouTube video as a last resort as I usually never source anything with YouTube). JAGUAR  22:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My objection to the screenshot is not that someone has just used the wrong template or copy-pasted the wrong block of words. If you genuinely aren't seeing the worry, here, then the other option (removing the screenshot altogether) may well be the best route. The question should not be "can I get away with using this screenshot?" but "can I get away with not using a screenshot in this article?" Josh Milburn (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You contested that it was used on thousands of images, reply that it's used on 50, and when I explain that it is actually used on thousands of images then "other stuff exists"? I haven't even staked a claim. All I've said is that your issue is with a general practice and not this specific image. I've already restored the original wizard upload's FUR and added text for its "n.a." fields. – czar 23:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, alright, it's used on thousands of pages. That's depressing- maybe I'm more optimistic about non-free content use than I have any right to be. That's not the point, and I've no idea why you're so keen to talk about it. I'm slightly bewildered; it's not clear to me why this review has descended into this silly back-and-forth. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the template at TfD and the FUR updated, the image issue should be resolved, so no qualms here. Probably could have been de-escalated by leaving the template discussion for its own page and keeping the GAN to what the image rationale needed. Feel free to hat this – czar 00:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I've addressed all of the above. Please let me know if there is anything outstanding? JAGUAR  18:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm happy that this is basically ready. Nice work- it's a very strong little article. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn, a reminder to close out the review on the talk page – czar 06:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done! Josh Milburn (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grabbed_by_the_Ghoulies/GA1&oldid=1085913841"