Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alleyway

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 4 August 2008 [1].

Alleyway

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk)
previous FAC 19:39 June 19, 2008

Addressed the issues brought up with the previous version of this article, including fair use rationales for the images that were more appropriate and requested (and subsequently received) a copyedit to improve the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interview with one of Tengen's employees with the relevant statements echoed in the Game Over book.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To append that, Mobygames does link to two interviews conducted on the site (Ed Logg, Gregg Tavares). Tavares himself cited an article by him in his blog and links to tsr's site (notably in his links and to that interview). ClassicGaming cites them as a resource as well, as do many other websites. As far as the site owner I have no information on him: he apparently remained solely by that username online. Will this suffice?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the main owner of the site has chosen to remain anon, I'm uncomfortable with using it as a source, but as you have the information backed up by another source, I'd suggest moving the interview to an external link. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the ref then, it would be out of place as an external link due to most of the discussion revolving around Nintendo v. Tengen. The Game Over book covers the Tetris delay well enough on its own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Neutral:

  • "for the original Game Boy." No need to sepcify which—if it was a different version then it would have been introduced by that name.
That's nitpicking. To a casual reader Game Boy by itself could just as easily mean Game Boy Color or Game Boy Advance, such as you yourself are suggesting could be implied by the bit below.
Yeah, but that's why the word is linked. The encyclopaedia can't cater to common misconceptions. As for nitpicking, that's pretty much what FAC is, although some problems are really obvious.
  • "It is a Breakout clone and was one of the first four games developed and released for the system by Nintendo. It was a launch title for every release of the Game Boy.[1]" A couple of things here: firstly, the second sentence is confusing. Do you mean "for every release" as a regional thing, because this could imply the variations of the Game Boy. Secondly, both these sentences seem to say the same thing. If it was one of the first four released, then it must be a launch title.
Fixed.
  • "The game was first released in Japan in 1989,[2] and was later released in North America. It was eventually released Europe in early 1990." Don't know why these very similar sentences are separate; when was it released in NA?
Fixed
  • "Alleyway was released with limited advertising, and receivedreceiving moderate to low scores from reviewers who compared it heavily to games like Arkanoid.[5]" You know, review things like this to improve flow.
Fixed.
  • "The object of Alleyway is to clear all breakable bricks". Use more accurate English; "clear" could mean anything.
Fixed.
  • "The gameplay is similar to that of Breakout." Strange to have a standalone sentence like this that seems to appear randomly without explanation. Consider merging into first sentence.
Fixed.
  • Again with the prose: "Paddle speed can be changed by holding either the B or A button on the controller while moving the paddle,[9] and the paddle 'which can only move horizontally at a fixed height." Needs someone to copyedit prose to fix the other examples.
Fixed...
  • Just want to clarify what may be a personal misconception here: "a downward 45° angle". Maybe I'm getting my Mathematics mixed, but I don't understand this phrase. I know what a 45 degree angle is, but thinking this through, I don't know what this "downward" thing means in relation. I can only think of two variables: whether this angle is aimed left or right, but this article doesn't explain that. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify this.
Reworded.
  • "one thousand points scored, until the player has over 10,000 points". Inconsistency with number usage. Probably should be displayed in digits, per WP:MoS
That's in line with the large numbers policy on the page you just linked to.
No it isn't. I used probably as two words are allowed, although I wouldn't go there in the case of thousands. Regardless, the usage isn't consistent. "one thousand" and "ten thousand" or "1000 and 10,000", preferably the latter.
  • "Because there is no battery-backed SaveRAM or a password feature, Alleyway must be completed in one sitting." Replace "must" with "can only". Suggests that everybody who buys the game must complete it.

Fixed.

  • "The player's ball will only travel in fixed angles of 15°, 30° or 45°." No need to say that the ball belongs to the player. If you've given the three possible outcomes, then "fixed" is redundant.
Feels more grammatically correct with the "fixed" there. Otherwise, fixed.
One would have though that the "only" would have established the concept of constant, but nevermind.
  • "The velocity is dependent on what brick type the ball comes into contact with." I'm not sure about this one. Technically there is a difference between speed and velocity, although I think that you're talking about the ball in regards to speed. I don't know if the two can be used interchangeably in an encyclopaedia.
Fixed.
  • "at a steep angle." Unsure about the English here; tehnically, the angle istelf is neither steep nor flat, only the line of movement.
Not really another way to word that and get the point across.
Well, it says the ball either travles at 15, 30, or 45 angles, so which is it? What's there is technically incorrect.
  • "the player manages to get the ball with the bulk of the paddle before it falls into the pit below, it will bounce back into the playing field." Not sure about the word "bulk"; plus, it is dependent on interpretation.
Replaced bulk with better descriptive term "body".
  • Sometimes when reading I have the feeling that the article's going into unnecessary detail. It raises the question whether such detail would be used if the game had more substantial content.
The detail is necessary to fully understand the subject in question, and is cited appropriately without original research. It's no different than the detail one could say on a game like Tetris.
At an extreme example: "If the player can hit all bricks for every stage through one playthrough, the player will get 9276 points plus an additional 9700 from clearing each bonus stage, making the maximum possible/"perfect" score on a single playthrough 18,976 points."
  • "twenty four" Should be hyphenated. Again, inconsistency with number usage as "32" is present in the aricle.
Fixed.
  • "Every three regular stages, the" Put "After" before "every".
Fixed.
  • "where the same pattern of bricks appears but behaves differently." Up until now, the concpet of bricks "behaving" in any way hasn't been explained. What does this mean?
Seems kinda silly to point out they're normally stationary, no? There's not a really convenient way to reword that.
  • "where the bricks move downward the height of one regular brick in short bursts, increasing in speed the more the current ball bounces off the paddle." Just generally an awkward sentence that needs rewording.
Worded better.
  • "As the player progresses through patterns" Why word it this way?
Why not? Levels is inappropriate as the added gameplay elements only appear with the start of a new pattern set.
  • "From the fourth stage on when the ball comes into contact with the top of the area, the paddle's size is halved until the stage is cleared or a life is lost" Needs a comma after "on", rearrange sentence so that it isn't begun with "when", if you know what I mean.
Should be fixed.
  • "Unlike regular levels, the ball will cut through the blocks in these stages without ricocheting, and contact with the ceiling will not affect the paddle." Don't understand. From what I read, the ball would just cut through everything, never returning. What's the point of this game then?
I've clarified that a little.
  • On scoring, the article really shouldn't go into specific number of points or the methods to achieve them. To be honest, I find the "Scoring" section to be totally useless.
It's a principle part of the game, and the only real goal of the game is to get a high score. It's vital to understand what the game is about.
Yeah, but giving the specific numbers and specific methods is needless.
  • The part about Mario on the box is not cited, and is poorly written in parts: "at the controls, but despite this the"
I have to cite the box even though it's clearly up there at the top of the article?
My mistake. Apologies
  • "well after the North American release." Watch out for informal phrasing. Try to be more specific too.
Fixed
  • Looking at "Development", I'm seeing very little of how the game was actually made.
There isn't anything available. You can't fault an article when information simply doesn't exist: it was a Breakout clone. There isn't even a credits sequence to cite who the programmers were.
  • The "Reception" coverage seems insufficient for an FA.
There isn't anymore said though. People compared it to Arkanoid or enjoyed it as a portable Breakout clone. You can't cite what doesn't exist and won't exist; even EGM didn't give the game half a page when they reviewed it, only a single column on a page.
  • I'm not sure about sources, but the instruction manual is given as a source published by Nintendo, even though it's given by way of another, assumedly unreliable site.
It's a transcription of the manual. Transcriptions are, last I checked, perfectly allowed to give the article reader a sense of the context being cited, no?
I was questioning the point that the information of the site wasn't included in the ref. I'm not an expert on refs, though.

It's a decent article, especially considering the game's age, but I just don't think it's ready yet. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed the issues the best I could.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responded to some points, will take another look later. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, addressed the other issues mentioned to this point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, all immediate issues seem to have been addressed, so I've declared nyself neutral. Regarding Reception and Development, that revolves around how the availability of information affects the comprehensiveness of the article in regards to 1b, but this seems to be a grey area. I personally feel that it's insufficient, but I suppose it would be unfair of me to oppose based on this. I still feel that there's too much unnecessary detail in the article. On a final note, the lead references the origin of the game's name, although this isn't mentioned in the main body of text. The lead is supposed to be a summary of everything in the body of text, so there shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't present further down. Good luck. Ashnard Talk Contribs 11:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually was created pretty much from scratch, but the diagram is still based in look upon Nintendo's, so I credited them under the free license tag to make everything smoother given it was an issue brought up in the previous FAC.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing only image licensing: I agree with the above comment on the balls image; the shadows definitely match the images on the Nintendo site. I'm not sure that the Japanese box art is necessary. --NE2 12:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improved the caption to make the box art more relevant to the article section it relates to.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping one of the two image reviewers (above) to find out if they're satisfied now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This has changed masses since the previous FAC. The prose has improved tremendously, and this is a very good article on what is a difficult subject (a very old game, hard to find reliable sources for). Well done. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments regarding images:
    • Image:Alleyway boxart.png needs a verifiable source (WP:IUP and WP:NFCC#10A) and a complete rationale (WP:RAT and NFCC#10C).
    • Image:Alleyway-balls.PNG contains contradictory information (permission asserts "Free to use for informative purposes. No copyright exercised on images", yet fair use is claimed). Image is not low resolution (NFCC#3B), but this may be moot as image appears to be replaceable with a free alternative (NFCC#1). A free alternative illustrating ball behavior could be easily created.
    • Image:Orig-alleyway-art.PNG appears purely decorative (NFCC#3A and NFCC#8); how does seeing the Japanese cover contribute significantly to our understanding of the game or its development? Article discussion (i.e. prerequisite critical commentary) of the covers is minimal. Prose and the "international box" depicted in the infobox appear adequate. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed the image...but I still feel it should be there as well to fully convey the game as a whole, as well as the one real difference between the Japanese and worldwide view of the game, as to the Japanese this was not presented on the packaging as a Mario title. Your call though. Either way, everything should be fixed and addressed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Better than the average video-game article, but the prose could still use some improvement. I've done some copy-editing, but more could be done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A follow-up... I still can't bring myself to support. There are some paragraphs that are still rather iffy, such as the second paragraph in the "Reception" section. On the other hand, I can't quite bring myself to oppose, either. It's basically not a bad article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. Concur with Jbmurray that it's better than average, but that's not good enough for FAC. Rough prose needs additional copy-editing and de-mystifying for our general audience.
    • Will a general audience know what a "global launch title" is?
Changed to worldwide...which is kinda funny because while that term is easier to understand, it redirects to global.
I'm actually more concerned with "launch title", which I noted you have wikilinked somewhere else but it needs linking or explanation in the lead. --Laser brain (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kicked the wikilink up there so launch title is now linked in the lead.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It is a Breakout clone and was one of the first four games developed and released for the system by Nintendo." The addition of "by Nintendo" qualifies the statement and implies there were other manufacturers releasing games initially. Is that correct?
Fixed, reworded a little to keep the fact that it is a Nintendo product intact without the noted implication.
    • Please find a better term than "used up" to describe the paddle stock.
Changed to depleted.
    • "The player may have up to nine paddles at any one time." Why not "at once"?
Fixed.
    • "The game lacks a continue feature ..." Video game jargon.
Linked to Continue. Alternative would probably be much wordier and unnecesary.
    • "The ball will only travel in 15°, 30° or 45° angles." Surely "at" angles, not "in".
Fixed.
    • The "type of brick type"?
Fixed.
    • "... gray and black bricks increase its speed, while white and indestructible bricks have no effect." How does one discern an indestructible brick? You've described the first three types visually and the last type by behavior.
Fixed, at least should be. The comma after square is to emphasize that it isn't implying there are more than one type of indestructible brick.
    • You've mixed the terms velocity and speed in the article, but they don't mean the same thing. Such statements as "The ball's direction and velocity ..." are inaccurate because direction is calculated in velocity. However, the term is used correctly in this statement: "Whenever the ball starts to loop between objects such as the ceiling, indestructible blocks and/or the paddle itself, its velocity will alter at a random point after the second cycle on its next collision."
Fixed.
    • Regarding the second sentence above, recommend "change" instead of "alter".
Fixed.
    • The whole explanation of high a score you can get is baffling. Non-video game people will not be able to parse "sprites" from Super Mario Bros.—please at least link the game title to ease their pain. Beginning with "Since the icon stops changing at that point ..." I'm completely lost. The term "rollover" also needs explanation and it is linked to a disambiguation page.
Super Mario Bros. is wikilinked in the previous section. Reworded the bit after the icon point to be more direct and hopefully easier to understand. The definition of "rollover" is covered on the disambiguation page however, 9th definition there.
Getting better, but I still don't understand "As a result the highest displayable score is 39,999, while the maximum score will only be displayed as 35,565." You've said 39,999 is "displayable", meaning it can be displayed, but then you say that it won't display. Unclear why? --Laser brain (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded it a little to state only four digits of the score are displayed, that should work with the subsequent icon description. Changed "display" the later parts stating what the highest visible score is to word it a little clearer.
    • "Promotion of the title in Nintendo published material consisted of a segment taking up a third of the page they were on." Who or what is "they"? You don't refer to anything plural in this sentence. --Laser brain (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Addressed everything tossed out here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—The prose is OK.

  • Position "only" as late as possible in a clause: "which can only move horizontally at a fixed height" (it can't sit horizontally, though). —>so should "only" come before "horizontally" or "at"? It changes the meaning. Only if either of those positions would give the wrong meaning would you retain the current position.
  • "Alleyway was also re-released for download onto"—remove "also"? The "re-" does it, surely.
  • "Reception of the game has been mostly negative."—Unlike the title above, a "The" is required; but probably better would be "Reviews of ...". Tony (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All three should be fixed and dealt with.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Alleyway&oldid=1138454249"