Jump to content

Talk:Wonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 8, 2010WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
August 18, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Fair use rationale for Image:SMS Wonderboy3.gif

[edit]

Image:SMS Wonderboy3.gif 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SMS Wonderboy3.gif

[edit]

Image:SMS Wonderboy3.gif 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) 04:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is widely considered among the best games produced for the Sega Master System[citation needed]

[edit]

You can cite me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konangrit (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Why are some video links removed whilst others not...

I.E.

Surely they fall under WP:MAYBE

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru Larry (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 September 2008

That the URL for that clip includes "Guru Larry" indicates that there is a potential conflict of interest, and also that the material is self-published. In such cases, the link in question is normally brought to the talk page to discuss first. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at WP:EL. Also see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:COI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Wonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in mostly good quality, but it requires few tweaks and a little copyeditting before it can be listed. There's also some concerns with the detail of information in the gameplay section. Issues are listed below:

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    > "weapons in which the player can collect" → "weapons that the player can collect"
    > The discussion of various platforms in the development section is a little repetitive in sentence structure with several consecutive sentences starting as "It was..." / "It would...". Try juggling around the sentence structure and use some different ways of starting the sentence to add some variety.
    > In the same vein, the first three paragraphs of the reception section all open with a variant on "[the game] received positive reviews/coverage". Again, try adding some variety to avoid this sort of repetition.
    > "positive reviews UK magazine Computer and Video Games and..." → "positive reviews in UK magazine Computer and Video Games and..."
    > "German magazine Video Games reviewed Wonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap and gave it positive reviews. The review said..." → "German magazine Video Games gave Wonder Boy III a positive review, saying that..."
    > "the game received positive reviews from IGN's Lucas Thomas" → "the game received a positive review from IGN's Lucas Thomas" (though the "positive review" phrase is a bit repetitive by this point)
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    > "It has been described as one of the best Master System games as well as one of the best 8-bit titles of all time" By who? Add where this statement has come from.
    > "life meter" should be wikilinked in its first usage, it is currently first wikilinked from its second.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. 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):
    There's a slight over-reliance on primary sources for the first part of the article, but its within acceptable limits.
    C. It contains no original research:
    > "which is the same as the final level in Wonder Boy in Monster Land" requires a reference
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    The development section is a little light, but acceptable if that's all we can get from secondary sources.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    > Don't bother giving review scores in the prose for the reception section. They're already in the template.

    > One could argue that the article is perhaps too focused in the first two paragraphs of the gameplay section. Bits like "Pressing the pause button brings up the Status Screen and pauses the game" and "Players must have enough gold to buy an item in a shop" feel quite trivial and obvious. I'd recommend that you go through the gameplay section to remove points that should be fairly evident to the reader, or could otherwise be considered unnecessary minutia.

    For instance:
    "The Status Screen shows how much attack and defense power, and charm that the player has in the form of "points"; the higher the points, the more of that attribute the player has. The amount of attack, defense, and charm depends on the player's form and with what the player is currently equipped; stronger swords increase attack power, stronger shields and armor increase defense power, and collecting charm stones and equipping specific types of armor increase charm."

    could be altered to something more concise, along the lines of:
    "The player has a set of points assigned to their character's attack and defense power and charm; these values are dependent on the armor and weapons that the player character has equipped and items the player has collected."
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I've put the article on hold, pending resolution of the above issues. Good luck!

Reviewer: Sabre (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I (hopefully) corrected, and hence struck above, all the above prose issues, switched the wikilink on "life meter", and removed the one review's percentage in the prose (see [1]).
  • As far as the last sentence in the lead is concerned, that is mentioned in the 2nd-to-last paragraph in the "Reception" section and is referenced from the corresponding IGN source. Because of that, it's normally redundant to use a citation in the lead. If you feel a citation is absolutely necessary (since it is a rather significant claim), I can make that into a direct quotation and cite accordingly if need be.
  • For the "Gameplay" section, I don't think it's unreasonable to verify most of the material in there from primary sources, i.e. the games' manuals, as those are the only places in which you can verify some of the material. Let's face it, secondary sources are not going to completely regurgitate how Gameplay works in their reviews.
  • That one sentence in the Gameplay section, After completing the first level ..., is sourced; it comes from the IGN source at the end of that sentence in the following passage:

Wonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap picks up right where Wonder Boy in Monster Land left off -- in fact, the first stage in this game is the same as the last stage in its predecessor.

I'll work on the remaining stuff sometime later today; it shouldn't be too hard nor take that long to do. –MuZemike 18:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cut a couple of sentences out in the entire Gameplay section and tried to reword some stuff to eliminate some redundancy (see [2]). –MuZemike 22:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, its all looking good, but just a couple of things.
    • Regarding the sentence in the lead, I'm not after a citation. If it was a quote, then yes, it would require one. What I mean is it feels a bit weasely in the wording. The reader may well come along and think "well, who said that? why do I care for their opinion, who are they anyway to make that commment?". My thought was to change the wording from "It has been described as..." to "IGN described it as..." to show who described it as such. Unless, of course, its been referred to as such by other sources.
    • There's still another percentage score in the reception section, its in the sentence after where the first one was.
    • Gameplay section's looking better now. There's still some bits I'm not entirely confident about, but to pursue them would be exceeding what is actually required for a GA review. Its fine now for GA.
    • My fault for missing the reference for the first level business. Sorry about that.
-- Sabre (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I did miss that one rating, which I removed. I changed the last sentence in the lead to: Reviews from Mean Machines have described Wonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap as one best games on the Master System, while IGN said it is one of the best 8-bit titles of all time. (see [3]) –MuZemike 14:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, all is good, GA passed. -- Sabre (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent changes

[edit]

The recent changes are not improving the article any. The plot is too short IMO to be in its own section, and all the information has been changed around, resulting in virtually none of the material matching what is in the sources given. Also, the length of the lead was appropriate for its article length, and now it's only one paragraph. I have reverted them back until they can be discussed at further length. –MuZemike 15:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

The article's lead is supposed to virtually the same information that the content outside the lead has; that is what a lead does, i.e. it's not supposed to introduce brand new stuff into the article.

If the problem is that some text is repeated within the article (which shouldn't be a problem as far as I can see), then would everyone be happy if I rephrased what was in the 2nd paragraph and place it back in there? --MuZemike 12:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fully sure an Overview paragraph is the correct approach to the describe a video game in a nutshell. Gameplay paragraphs you see are designed to explained the mechanics, principles, aspects and features of a video game. Plot or Storyline or whatever you may want to call it, doesn't matter that much to me. You may wish to retitle Overview to Summary for example, since the top sentence counts more as an overview to shortly brief and define the game title itself. If you have any other troubles, seek some help from the help desk. Deltasim (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those two could also be combined into a single "Overview" section, as single-paragraph sections are generally not a great idea; that said, I find it hard to not have a separate section on the game's development and release, as it wouldn't necessarily fit in the much larger "Reception" section. In any case, the game's plot, gameplay overview, and reception still needs to be summarized (in some form) in the lead, which that is currently lacking. --MuZemike 00:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was do not merge. --MuZemike 11:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Wonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap be merged into Wonder Boy: The Dragon's Trap. I think that the content in the remake article can easily be explained in the context of the original one. I believe it should be done in the same way that Final Fantasy (video game) did, with a dedicated section to the remakes and re-releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:bd60:679:ec09:6413:1eba:b7f1 (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP's proposal has the articles switched around; that is, the smaller article Wonder Boy: The Dragon's Trap should be merged into the larger original article Wonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap. I'm not opposed to such a merge, as the development and reception can easily be included into the original game article and make for a more complete article. However, I won't lose much sleep if the remake article isn't merged, though, as there is plenty of development information about the remake. --MuZemike 18:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There's enough information and media coverage to justify an own article.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:Wonder_Boy_III:_The_Dragon%27s_Trap&oldid=1198484741"