Jump to content

Talk:OverClocked ReMix/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi. I will be reviewing your article for GA. It is about a very interesting subject about which I know little. All in all the article looks good. Below I will list my comments regarding issues in the article, some of which may seem nit picky. My initial comments are below and I may add more. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "dedicated to the preservation and tribute of video game music" - a grammatical problem as "tribute" needs a "to" after it, as in "tribute to" - sentence needs to be reworded.
  • "through interpretation with new technology" - not sure what you mean by "interpretation" here.
  • "free fan " - do you mean video game fan or video game music fan?
  • Per MoS: Overlinking and underlinking, common words like website and webmaster should not be wikilinked.
  • Why is this bolded: DJ Pretzel's OverClocked ReMix? Also, is it an organization, a website, both, or what? Why is the name different from the article name?
  • "as a spin-off of his gaming and emulation related..." what does emulation mean in this context?
  • "165 works have been removed throughout the years..." - not supposed to start a sentence with a number.
  • "Other violations include "stolen"..." - why is stolen in quotes?
  • What are "overly liberal arrangements"?
  • "tributing" - tribute is not a verb but a noun, so there is no such word as "tributing"
  • "The site also maintains a skills database of its community to encourage artist collaboration" - The site maintains a database of the skills of members of its coummunity to encourage....?
  • "Lloyd and other staff also conduct interviews with prolific ReMixers, video game music composers and celebrities on video game music creation and fandom." - conduct interviews with fandom? Since fandom means fans collectively, how do they conduct interviews with fans collectively?
  • "where the majority of community interaction occurs" - the wikilink to interaction does not explain interaction specifically enough for your use here.

I will put the article on hold for now. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I beleive I addressed all of the above issues. --PresN 18:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • "as a spin-off of his gaming and video game emulation related 3D webcomic, OverClocked" - his gaming and video game emulation related 3D webcomic - do you mean emulation-related or what? I don't quite understand.
  • "praised the remixed music before UDON's high definition artwork." - does this mean he praised the music over UDON's artwork? i.e. he thought the music was better than the art work?
  • The heading Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix ends up looking very bold as a heading and out of place. Also, the material in that section contains more than just the info on Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix. Could the heading name be changed to something like "Successful album and plugins" or something better?
  • Why is not the paragraph under "Industry reaction" that starts "In late 2002, the first OC ReMix by a veteran professional game composer was released, The 7th Guest "Fat Dance" by "The Fat Man" George Sanger.[43] In early 2004, this was followed by the second ReMix of its kind..." etc. instead under "Albums and other projects" or under whatever you change heading Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix to? Aren't these also OC ReMix products?
  • "tributing" - there is no such word. "Tribute" is a noun and can't be used as a verb.
  • "by several highly recognized figures" vague and a little POV. How about "several industry figures" or "several leaders in the field" or "several leading artists" or whatever you like.
  • I haven't looked closely at all the footnotes yet, but generally it is not good to have more that two references for any one statement. In this article some have as many as five. And in the lead, you should not need footnotes, as you are summarizing the article in the lead, so the references would be in the body of the article where the material is discussed. (It's ok to have a few in the lead, but you have a whole lot.)

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've tried to fix all of these. I'm leaving that paragraph under Industry Reaction, but I reworked the flow a bit- now it goes "these guys have praised OCRemix, these guys have praised the OCRemixes of their stuff, and these guys have taken it a step further and made their own". --PresN
It's not a heading, it's a template. --PresN 23:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use these? (don't know how reliable they are, but at least they are articles written by people on organized websites)

    • Riendeau, Danielle. "Articles about overclocked remix - Gamertell". www.gamertell.com. Retrieved 2009-01-13.
    • Lloyd, David W. "Game Audio Network Guild - Capcom & OverClocked ReMix Make Video Game Soundtrack History". www.audiogang.org. Retrieved 2009-01-13.
  • I can attempt to help with 3rd party sources, as I maintain a list of the site's press coverage. I'm on staff at OC ReMix, BTW. I'll see what I can find and make a list either tonight or tomorrow. - Liontamer (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. Thank YOU very much for taking time out of your day to look over it! I'm always just glad more people can find out what we do. Just as a refresher (I edit articles on game composers in my spare time), how are interviews looked at as sources vs. straightforward articles? We've given lots of interviews where we state information about the site, but perhaps that isn't to be taken at face value per guidelines here. I also ask, since my own pet project article, Tim Follin, relies mostly on information he provided through his interviews. Thanks! - Liontamer (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I took out/replaced the blog reference, the forum reference, and a few direct references to OCReMix- the remaining ones are more courtesy references- you don't really need a ref for the statement about the skills database, it's right there on the site and isn't arguable, it's just nice to provide. The vast majority of the remaining references are to interviews with dj pretzel et. al.- are there any specific sources that you find questionable? Let me know, and I'll replace them. --PresN 17:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on references

Hope this helps. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright...I do hope you're kidding on some of these. UGO/1UP is owned/run by a multinational media conglomerate, does fact-checking, and the disavowment you're referencing is a legal boilerplate to indemnify them of any legal culpability if there's a mistake somewhere. Ditto with Gamespot, IGN, GamesRadar, G4TechTV- these are all major news organizations that focus on media/video games. I guarantee you that CNN, NBC, etc have the same legal notice somewhere on their site. Let me go down through the other ones and justify them, then.

djpretzel- um, you're sure that you can't reference their own site about themselves? I'll check.

retrogames- I was using it to prove it was Dec 11, not just December, but I'll drop it.

gamesetwatch- owned by United Business Media LLC, subsidiary of United Business Media, a ~5000 person, ~$1billion/year company. Someone's basement blog it ain't.

threedworld- "3D World Magazine is a Sydney-based free weekly street press magazine that has been in existence since 1989. With a CAB audited distribution of 31,000 copies throughout NSW and ACT and a weekly readership of 150 000, we are Australia's largest electronic music publication. We launched our website in 1994, the first commercial dance music website in Australia."

nostalgiaholic- the problem is not that it's a blog. A blog is a method of content delivery. The problem is that I can't find any proof of editorial control or corporate ownership over the content being delivered. Will remove.

square-go - also run their own magazine, this time in Scotland. The submission page asks you to submit something to them to look at, it's not the same thing a posting user content directly without any editorial control

console-arcade - worthless, hadn't checked the link, will remove

eurogamer- does too say - http://www.eurogamer.net/how-we-work.php

OXM - it's called "Official" Xbox Magazine for a reason- it's the officially Microsoft-sponsored Xbox magazine

GamesRadar- owned by the same parent company as OXM

blogs.oreilly.com/ - ...it says the quote it's sourcing, is what it says. And blog or no, the fact that the poster is George Sanger means you treat it like a SelfPublishedSource and look to him for notability- and he's got it.

ourstage- it's an interview, they're not the ones doing the reporting.

vgfrequency.com- it's run by liontamer and OCReMix, it's basically the OCRemix blog, so it gets treated like a reference to OCRemix itself.

You really need to go and read WP:RS, because you seem to have some really big misconceptions about what is and is not a reliable source. For example- the blog.oreilly thing I'm referring to is "material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The djpretzel thing is here. And a news organization saying that they do not legally promise that everything the publish is 110% accurate is not the same thing as saying that they'll publish any old thing. --PresN 00:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Regarding the issue above, use your judgment, as there were so many footnotes I had to go through them quickly and may have missed something. As long as you are aware of the issue and what to look for, then I will depend on you to make the correct judgments. Be sure to give the publishers (or website) for all citations. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Liontamer and I have gone through and put publisher info into all of the sources, and I'm satisfied that I've removed all of the bad sources. Are there any other concerns with the article? --PresN 14:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, there was a problem with some of the footnotes not working. I could not figure out the problem, but it seems you have fixed. Everything looks good. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources

[edit]

I figured data on how many ReMixes, ReMixers, games, albums are represented was best conveyed through primary refs that will never be outdated; sorry if that's bad form. I can see how other instances of the sourcing could be swapped with secondary sources; I just haven't had the time to do as such myself.

We don't do too much for the press besides interviews, so apologies if the following interview links (mostly geared toward our recent Street Fighter soundtrack) aren't useful. I can take a deeper look in the near future. Regarding the Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix game soundtrack, we do maintain relevant quotes (with links) from gaming press. Larger entities that praised the soundtrack included Eurogamer, GameSpot, IGN, Official Xbox Magazine, GamesRadar, 1UP.com, as well as composer "The Fat Man" George Sanger. Here's what I have in the way of interviews; larger entities are in bold - The Wizard Universe link is brief coverage of a recent convention/panel presentation of ours and the GameSpot AU piece was created in part through an interview with myself and the site's founder:

Again, sorry if these aren't useful enough for the purposes of the article. - Liontamer (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): Sources are reliable
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Yes b (focused): Remains focused on subject
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: NPOV
  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:

Passes GA. A wonderful article. Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 14:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OverClocked_ReMix/GA1&oldid=1084077913"