Talk:The Great Giana Sisters/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: RFNirmala (talk · contribs) 05:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi! My second GA review. Will complete the table in around 2 days.

Ping me if I'm inactive (and I'll let another reviewer decide on the verdict, since I might be on a wikibreak this month.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Moved to a new section. See "Grammar and prose points". Reception can be organized better by topic sentences (for the first paragrph).
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Not a major issue, I will raise or edit some minor points throughout the review.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	If there are, search for URLs on your sources (such as the Internet Archive). I don't require this, although this would make spotchecking faster and sources more accessible.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Appropriately sourced. On hold while article is being improved.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No major issue so far.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article does cover the main aspects of the game. Details on the background and release (e.g. where in Europe, other ports) may be included.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No major issue so far.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	At first glance, "Reception" might need work. Will check this deeper Neutrality isn't an issue, "Reception" just needs organization.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Will put this on hold while improving article's content and organization., but there's easily no edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Non-free media and use rationales provided in respective images. No issue so far.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I recommend adding alt captions for the British art cover. I would almost say you should add an alt image for the German cover art, but it would be only for describing Giana's appearance (blonde, red shirt...) See MOS:ALT. Looks good. Happy to oblige. I've added ALT tags to rest of the images too, because why not while I'm here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC) I recommend adding a sample of the soundtrack to show its distinction from Super Mario.
	7. Overall assessment.

Some things to add in the article content:

• How long did development take place? How long was it sold in the UK before being pulled out from stores, or receiving the letter from Nintendo? Jones, Darran (2008) has content that can be added, but search for other sources to support this.
  • I've found a source more directly related to the production on how long the game was available. I know the Jones source states it was out for about a week (or something to that effect) in the UK Retro Gamer. I can't really tell for sure if Jones is being specific with these dates or he's just trying to say that as sort of a hyperbole as he does not give dates. If you think it should be included, I'm happy to do it, but these are just my concerns. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Darran also included the developer's experiences of constantly revising the game after "hassle from management". You may consider adding that to the development's 'story'
  • Added. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• You may expand descriptions of the enemies. "Giant ants" is good, but may you give examples of "cute enemies"? As I mentioned in the table, describing Giana and her sister may also be an option.
  • There isn't that much to say about them I don't think. I took out the term cute as that might be too much of a description borrowed from the Retro Gamer source. I could find some potentially describing the enemies, but it may be out of context for the comparison to the Super Mario Bros. enemies, which is the main key point of the sentence here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Super Mario Bros. doesn't have prose on Mario and Luigi being red and green, so I'm okay without descriptions of the sisters. You can check SMB's gameplay to connect how the Great Giana Sisters level and gameplay is similar (e.g. underwater enemies, how Giana defeats enemies...) RFNirmala (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I can probably dig up sources on how they attack enemies, is it appropriate in the gameplay section though to compare how that gameplay is similar to Super Mario Bros. or unique to the game? Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  There's no need to make a list on similarities and differences in the article, so there should be no sentence/paragraph explicitly stating differences in gameplay. There are already examples on /* Background and development */, which can be expanded if there are reliable sources on it. By the way, I only realized there aren't any underwater enemies in the game. RFNirmala (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Caoili, Eric (November 9, 2009) and Loguidice, Bill aren't cited in the article, but are present in the sources list.
  • Embarrassing spelling error aside, I've removed this citation. I think I was using it as a temp source for something, but removed it as I found that clarified information better as I went along. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Some of the sources deviate from the name "Giana". Is it okay if you clarify this on the article? One-sentence paragraphs can be resolved by organizing the article. Organize /* Reception */ too by adding topic sentences and reviews according to their content points by WP:VG/REC. RFNirmala (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Grammar and prose points

• Wikilink what a "lolly" is, or change word to "candy", depending on the context of the source.
• After coming third in a 1986 contest for a German magazine called 64'er..." you may add a few words what the contest was about.
• "In the 1970s and early 1980s, video game clones of popular arcades were rampant, and this growth of clones were followed on home computers."
• "The game is a platform game, where the player controls either Giana in single player mode, or in two-player mode, switches between Giana and Maria." The underlined phrase can be connected better. You can say "The platform game right away" instead of repeating the first sentence in the lead.
• Quotation mark the word "twee" if it's in the original article.
  • Hi. I've tried to address the five issues above. The in-game text/instructions specifically says "lolly". The are indeed lollipops, so I've wikilinked the term to no have some unfortunate misunderstanding. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• "As well as Trenz, who created the game's visuals and high score programming, the developers included Gessert, who developed the rest of the code, and Chris Huelsbeck who wrote the score." We can make this more concise e.g. "The game developers included..."

RFNirmala (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)