Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1993 video game)

Source

So is this game based on the film or the book? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 18:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I played it long, long ago at a friend's house. IIRC, it was based on the movie, with some elements of the book thrown in.Filby 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WizardofozSNES boxart.JPG

Image:WizardofozSNES boxart.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

grammar

This article needs to be cleaned up -- there are run-on sentences and parentheticals within parentheticals.

I also suggest adding in why the AVGN disliked the game -- it has really awful hit detection (you can jump through platforms instead of landing on them) or virtually no weapons.

71.234.109.192 (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

A lot of the character descriptions seem to be taken from this FAQ on GameFAQs: http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/snes/file/588855/37181 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.191.143.7 (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1993 video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MuZemike (talk · contribs) 17:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

First GA review in many years! In any case, there are some things that stand out while reading the article and looking at the prose that I have outlined below in my review. They need to be addressed before I'm comfortable passing for GA.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See below for a list of specific issues.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   In the "Development and Release" section, "it ultimately was never released" is unreferenced.

Uh....... yeah. The fact that no other citation exists of the NES game actually being released is a citation itself it was never released. It's pretty frequent for articles about projects that went nowhere to do this. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good amount of coverage for both in the 1990s (print, which is hard to find) and comtemporary.

   Thanks! It was tricky. You can use Internet Archive, retromags and MobyGames to look for online showings of print sources for video games easier. However, at the same time, I can't tell how many times results come up that isn't coverage of the game you're looking for but just a fricking listing at a store. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

GA #1 issues

• You have "Dorthy" and "Dorothy" throughout the article; I think the latter is the correct spelling from looking at the The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) article.
  • Fixed, now they all say Dorothy HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• MOS:SERIAL - Some places you use the serial comma, but in many others you don't. Stick with only one usage (or lack thereof) throughout the entire article.
  • Fixed. Now all list sentences with three or more items have serial commas. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• "These displays can be de-activated by pressing the right button." - Is it "right" on the controller or the "R" button? Be more specific to avoid confusion.
  • Fixed. It's the R button. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Some of your bundled citations (where you have multiple citations together) are out of numerical order.
  • I believe you're referring to those EGM cites about the NES game listed as being in development. It actually is all in the proper order; it's just that issue 44 isn't cited, and that's because it didn't include a directory of games being developed unlike those other issues, which listed an NES version of the Wizard of Oz. Thus, there's no EGM no. 44 cite. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    • What I meant was here, which I went ahead and rearranged. --MuZemike 01:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Johnny Reynolds of The Things and Brett Alan Weiss were baffled..." Brett Alan Weiss of whom?
  • AllGame. I originally didn't do a "[critic] of" way of presenting him for fear of repetitive prose, but the source is specified now. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Good, but I made one more small tweak here. --MuZemike 01:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Overall

 On hold So that the above issues can be addressed. --MuZemike 17:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• @MuZemike: All comments have been addressed or responded to. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Looks all good on my side.  Passed. --MuZemike 01:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)