Jump to content

Talk:Sam & Max Save the World/GA1

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with  Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it  Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times. --Philcha (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am stopping this review. I simply have no confidence left in your ability as a GA reviewer with this article, and hold severe grievances with your understanding of WP:WIAGA and definitely with your intepretation of WP:V, the latter of which I feel is being held to a ridiculously pedantic standard far above that which is actually required and that I've ever seen applied anywhere on this site. Although several valid points on sourcing were brought up, I feel this is undermining the review. It is clear that we are not going to see eye-to-eye on anything further and thus it would be counterproductive for either of us to continue with this. I'm more than willing to accept views different from my own in reviews, but not when I feel they are in direct conflict to the spirit of the guidelines being used to back them. So, I'm going to end this review and mark it as failed. -- Sabre (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

[edit]

Structure

[edit]
  • Green tickY Having "Gameplay" and "Synopsis" up-front works well for me. "Episodes" naturally follows "Synopsis", and "Machinima" naturally follows "Episodes". I considered whether a chronologcal order starting with "Development" would be better, but decided against that as "Development" will be ancient history in a couple of years while, if the game is successful, readers will want to see what it's all about. So I'm happy with the top-level structure. --Philcha (talk)
    • Its pretty much the standard structure for a video game article, take a look at some of the FAs for comparison. The general convention is to follow "Gameplay", "Plot/Synopsis", "Development" and conclude with "Reception/Cultural impact", with any additional sections added in where appropriate. -- Sabre (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prose style

[edit]
  • While skimming through, I found the prose a bit of a distraction. My impression is that it sounds like a cross between a wannabe-academic and The Office. I think large chunks need to be rephrased in a simpler, more direct style, and suggest you do the exercises at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a - excluding the 3rd set, as GA requires only a limited subset of MOS. I'll comment on specific passages as I see them in the walkthrough part of this review, but I hope you'll start being proactive - I can do OfficeSpeak too :-) --Philcha (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Urgh, I can't stand The Office! I'm insulted you think my writing is that bad(!). Seriously though, if there's one thing I've learnt from my time on Wikipedia, its that I'm a rubbish copyeditor—I just don't see where the prose slips up, a fault that's halted me more than once at FAC. I'll try to give it a closer comb-through, but throw the bits that bother you at me and I'll deal with them. As long as it doesn't involve completely rewriting the article, I'm game. -- Sabre (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

[edit]
"3D", "graphic adventure game", "point-and-click", "solve puzzles", "cartoon environments" all suported now, thanks - an dso are the statements without losing support for the statements that weere already supported, what a relief! Nothing in any of the sources I've read so far (about 10) says "third-person perspective" but,as you saud, the pics make that clear. --Philcha (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best I could find: gamingnexus "you will have to solve a lot of puzzles in crazy nonsensical ways in order to advance the story", palgn.com.au "there are a few that force some creative use of your virtual environment"
Added the first one. -- Sabre (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now remove the phrase that is still not supported, or another ref that covers it. --82.34.73.184 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done Sam & Max: Episode 1 - Culture Shock (Eurogamer) does not support any of para "An inventory system is implemented in the game ... a gun that may be used to solve several puzzles."
IGN does not support "cannot be used together or combined to create new items" --Philcha (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. "Rather than relying on complicated inventory juggling, the interface in Sam and Max lets players use, examine, take or give items all based on context. Just click on an item and you'll do the right thing with it." -- Sabre (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, all it implies is that the object deploys itself automatically (hat goes on your head, gun fills yore hand, you sunnuva ...) then, if the gun's in your hand and you click a valid target, bang! --82.34.73.184 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done "which when selected will present the player with a list of available destinations. The DeSoto is also used for several driving sequences, usually involving pursuing or fleeing criminals in other vehicles" not supported by gamespy.
Second page, second paragraph: basic outline of driving sequences. -- Sabre (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that part of the source simply says, "sequence in which the pair has to catch a fleeing van". That could be anything - martial arts stunts over the roof-tops, or perhaps Max goes into cheetah mode or Sam releases his inner greyhound. --82.34.73.184 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done I think you need to explain how the inventory is invoked and dismissed - the article text and the reviews I've read so far leave me puzzled about this. If necessary you could use the game manual as a ref for this (w page number and preferably chapter / section heading). gamespot & palgn.com.au help. --Philcha (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added GameSpot reference. -- Sabre (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the explanation? IIRC there a box bottom right that spills its contents across the bottom of the screen. Can't remember a ref saying how to re-pack it. --82.34.73.184 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to describe step-for-step how someone opens the inventory. This is not a game guide, and is not meant to provide indepth details on how a player carries out any particular in-game activity. The end result of what you suggest would result in the addition of how-to like material. That the player can select an item from the inventory and use it on something else is all that is and needs to be stated. -- Sabre (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ref now given for the description is a book Purcell wrote in 1995. That's WP:SYN. There's no guarantee that the 2008 game followed that identically, in fact one of the reviews said the car changed from hardtop (1993) to convertible (2008). adventuregamers.com supports car year & model (but not colour). --Philcha (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No no no, that is not synthesis. I do not and cannot even begin to agree with that. It is simple use of a primary source, I'm not using it to put across "a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources". Its merely regurgiating a basic franchise fact that is stated inescapably clearly in the document: Sam & Max drive a DeSoto Adventurer. The document cited is by the series creator, who was also one of the lead designers on this project. The document outlines the entire franchise, past and future. To reject a source as valuable as the design document that dictates the whole franchise as "synthesis" in the absense of any actual evidence that fundamental series aspects have been changed (changing from hardtop to softop is immaterial, its been interchangeable through the whole franchise) is utterly illogical. I've added the Adventure Gamers reference, but I couldn't disagree with you more strongly over the eligibility of that design document for this, or any other Sam & Max article; I am not removing that reference. And you aren't seriously challenging that the colour of the car isn't black-and-white? Sources for that level are only needed when "likely to be challenged", material that is is contentious or counter-intuitive. The colour of the car is quite clearly none of those things. -- Sabre (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re your comment, "its been interchangeable through the whole franchise", that's not in any source, so it would be WP:OR if used explicitly or implicitly in the article. It's not worth the hassle, drop the book and stick to the contemporary reviews.
Re the colour scheme, the pic at eurogamer shows a basically black car with what may be the outline of a folded-down white soft-top. If that's the best pic (and IIRC the reviews all use the same set of pics), there's no support for colour scheme. In any case the real point is that it's a 1960 car by a maker that went out of business before most readers were born; a few may even get the small joke that S&M's vehicle was one of the last. --82.34.73.184 (talk)
The point about the soft top/hard top is irrelevant, nowhere in any design document or other primary source of similar nature is it said definitively that it had to be one nor the other. The point on colour is bureaucracy and pedantic behaviour gone mad, I dread to think what this review would have gone like when we had actually got to the material that can be described as potentially dubious, counterintuitive or controversial. Any point on anything as utterly unconnected as when DeSoto went out of business is equally inconsequential. -- Sabre (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does IGN, whose only comment about the driving scenes is "If there's a low point for the interface, it's the short driving sequence. While I agree that a full on action mode wouldn't work for the game, the point and click controls for the car are just too sluggish and make the entire sequence a little unnatural." --Philcha (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
gamesradar supports S&M (geez, I only just got that one!) using "trumped-up charges" as pretext to pull motorists over. -Philcha (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added GamesRadar source, IGN supports the point made from images in the source. -- Sabre (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IGN provides 1 car image, which supports only gun. --82.34.73.184 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the gun, horn and megaphone displayed clearly on the side of the user interface. -- Sabre (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pause the review here. At present the article is heading for a "fail" for non-compliance with WP:V. Please check all of the article and make sure that all statements are supported and that the refs actually support what they claim to support. In some of the cases I've already raised, the existing refs will do the job if re-used, sometimes in combination. Please leave a message here when you're ready for the review to resume. --Philcha (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed those, although several of those do backup the points they are intended to, such as the Eurogamer one on inventory system mechanics. Gameplay sections are often difficult to cite at the best of times; reviewers tend to assume the reader has vague background knowledge of franchises and past titles for basic stuff, or that its evident from the images in the article. They don't tend to analyse the game mechanics in anything other than general terms.
There's also very little to explain about the inventory system, it is exactly as described. The player clicks on the item they want to use, then on the thing they want to use it with. "The player may select any of the items in the inventory and attempt to use them on objects in the game world, or give them to other characters". I can't cite the manual anyway, there isn't one. The Eurogamer reference does it simply enough. -- Sabre (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted the hole of "Sam & Max Save the World is a 3D graphic adventure game in which the player controls the character of Sam from a third-person perspective. The player has Sam explore the cartoon environments of the game and solve a series of puzzles using a simple point-and-click interface" because it has several items that need to be supported by citations - from beginning to end. You need to look at every term that is not taught in primary schools, and find those terms in sources, then cite the sources. That's the point of my comment "In some of the cases I've already raised, the existing refs will do the job if re-used, sometimes in combination". Hint: terms that are or should be wikilinked generally need refs, because they are not part of the normal general knowledge of non-specialists.
I know reviewers assume readers already have the necessary background info, but WP does not. The problem is by no means confined to video games, in fact I'd say it's the default behaviour for sources, and we all have to deal with it. --Philcha (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I feel you're being somewhat too zealous with the application of WP:V here. WP:V is for material "likely to be challenged", for "quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements", not for every piece of material that is above primary school level—which in most encyclopedia articles, not limited to just Wikipedia, is every third word. That this is a 3D cartoon graphic adventure game is not something that is likely to be challenged or a counter-intuitive or controversial statement, with someone claiming its actually a first-person shooter or an aardvark with a Jekyll and Hyde dual personality, thus it doesn't need multiple references backing up a simple statement of genre word for word. That level of application isn't even put to gameplay sections at FA level. All this information is conveyed within the text and images of the sources provided. -- Sabre (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you put the same effort into fixing it that you've put into arguing about it, the issue would have been resolved 2-3 hours ago. I can see how to handle over 90% of it from the sources already cited, but it's your job to do it. WP:V also says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" - in other words, someone could come along at any time and add 3 {{fact}} tags to the first sentence alone. Then someone finds that a GA has {{fact}} tags and sets up a WP:GAR, and if you don't fix it pretty quickly at that point, the article's demoted - back to start-class! --Philcha (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this is referencing for the sake of referencing, not where needed, but I've added the extra citations. As far as I can see, everything that needs citations in the gameplay section has citations; the points mentioned above have had references juggled around to match the information derived from the source, or have been reworded to the same effect. -- Sabre (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, my point about {{fact}} tags stands - anyone can put a {{fact}} tag on one word in a phrase, and you know the consequences. I've checked the article's history and it's not as if you had to reftrofit refs to existing text, which is a PITA of job. At this stage I suggest you put a {{fact}} tag on every fact in the artcile, then go through sources line by line, checking whether it clears all of a {{fact}} tag - if it give partial coverage, slap it in and rearrange the wording to split into supported and unsupported. I know that sounds laborious, but as far as I can figure out it's much better than going through all the refs to find support one sentence / phrase, then same again for the next one, etc. And put {{underconstruction}} at the top of the article to prevent items with {{fact}} tags from being deleted by some zealot before you're finished. For future reference, if you want to see how to develop something quickly but solidly, look at Fossils of the Burgess Shale, where a buddy of mine pasted in something for starters on 24 Apr 2009, mainly so we could then use Talk:Fossils of the Burgess Shale as a workbook for our preparations. We still have to resolve some issues about the structure of the final section (the facts are solid) and he's been a bit short of time the last few days. But when that's done, it'll sail througb GA - well, apart from minor tinkering that reviewers can't resist. --Philcha (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS My approach to refs in this review is the same as at e.g. Talk:Rocket Science (film)/GA1, Talk:Lisa Moretti/GA1, Talk:Field lacrosse/GA1, Talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow/GA1 (now FA) and Talk:Northern Bald Ibis/GA1 (now FA). --Philcha (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

(to be done when issues in the main text are resolved)

Use of images

[edit]

(to be done when issues in the main text are resolved)


Lead

[edit]

(to be done when issues in the main text are resolved)


- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
 If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e. use the "edit" link at the top of the page.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sam_%26_Max_Save_the_World/GA1&oldid=289706657"