Talk:ABA Games/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Some issues with the prose:

• The Overview section seem to drone on with its two huge paragraphs. Readable prose normally consists is usually around 4-6 sentences with an intro/topic sentence and one at the end to "tie it all in". I would suggest splitting as I have mentioned in 3a below: making a separate Reception section with material from the Overview section, split the remaining material in the Overview section to two paragraphs, and rename "Overview" to "History". Also, unless you add anything more in the Games section, I concede that it would be difficult and non-sensical to do the same thing in that section.

I split up the larger paragraph. Addressed the other points in the section below. bridies (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. It's possible that the section could be four paragraphs, but it's not a big deal right now, but it would be something to look at if the section gets expanded. MuZemike 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Cho is the sole contributor to ABA Games; lacking musical training, he creates the soundtracks to his games using commercially available, pre-made samples. → I don't think those two facts (as separated by the semicolon) make sense in the same sentence. Either rewrite to include so that both facts are interconnected or separate into two sentences.

Changed to separate sentences. bridies (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. MuZemike 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Consistency: You seem to interchange the mentioning of Cho and ABA Games. I would suggest only mentioning Cho by name if the context is about him as a person. A good example of what you shold follow is in this sentence in the article: ABA Games released its first shoot 'em up game, Noiz2sa, in 2002 and the positive feedback Cho received encouraged him to concentrate on the genre. This will also shift the focus of the article on ABA Games rather than on Kenta Cho, help clarify facts to readers, and help eliminate any ambiguity that readers might first get when reading it.

I did this to avoid repeating "ABA Games" in every other sentence and because they are indeed essentially interchangable (the article could just as easily be called 'Kenta Cho'). The first sentence of the article makes it clear they're pretty much synonymous so I don't see how there can be any ambiguity. Nevertheless I modified the article per your suggestion. bridies (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks better. Article now is more based on the developer rather than the person, which was the big thing I was looking for (especially if, by any chance in the future, Cho does something else outside ABA Games and warrants his own article; the spinout would be much easier). MuZemike 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Cho's games are "avant-garde" re-imaginings classic arcade shoot 'em ups, ... → I am not sure what this is saying. Maybe a word is left out or something, and I don't know what "re-imaginings" are.

Yeah I missed a word. It should be "re-imaginings of classic arcade shoot 'em ups". "re-imagining" is the word used by the Escapist and Ashcraft sources. Reinventions or whatever. bridies (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I never knew that, nor have I heard the term before. Perhaps a Wiktionary term is in order :) MuZemike 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Go over the grammar/usage again in the Games section, just as I have done in the Overview section for you here.

Done. I think it's fine. Incidentally I disagree there was anything wrong with the grammar you changed, although some of the changes are admittedly aesthetic improvements. bridies (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The big thing I noticed was punctuation/misplaced commas. There were still a few comma splices and probably some places where emdashes would make more sense or at least to avoid overloading a particular sentence with commas. Some other things I found while copyediting the Games section (and corrected myself, as shown here; listing them for future reference and as an aid in future copyediting):

• the player can control the speed at which the protagonist proceeds through the level. → I thought it sounded better to indicate that the player is proceeding through the level.
• The faster the player moves through a level, the more points the game will yield. → Keeping it simple, changed to the more points they [players] will score.
• dependant → dependent
• ...by means of both hands on the keyboard. → Again, for simplicity, changed to ...using both hands...
• Blast Works was met with critical acclaim for its innovative and entertaining gameplay, and has been described by critics variously as an upgraded version or remake... → The first thing I changed was the voice of the sentence from the passive to the active. The second is that the comma listed above is a splice because it is not separating two independent clauses (but rather one independent and one dependent) – a common mistake made by many (even veteran) editors.
• It's iPhone and iPod, respectively; the first letter after the "i" always capitalized per Apple's naming convention.

Hopefully, I caught everything. MuZemike 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance:

   The lead needs some improvement. I suggest separating into two paragraphs at least, with the first paragraph norrowly focusing on defining the developer clearly and unambiguously (cf. MOS:BEGIN). Basic stuff I would suggest in that first papagraph would be those first two sentences and where the lead mentions that he specializes in shoot 'em up games with a focus on retro. The rest could go into a second paragraph. This helps better establish the context of the article and acts as a "hook" for readers.

I rearranged and expanded the lead. See what you think. bridies (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks very good, now. MuZemike 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Very well done.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I would suggest making a Reception section for Cho after the Games section by using the stuff in the second half of the second paragraph in the Overview section. Then change the section title "Overview" to "History". That would surely show broad coverage.

I don't think I agree this is necessary, or desirable. Little of the Overview section is about "history" as such. We only know that he started making games in the 80s and then joined Toshiba after university. None of the sources bother with chronology when discussing his games (there are no dates mentioned in any of them) and thus it's mostly just general info without specific historical context. Also much of the "reception" information is contained within the games section. We could extricate that infomation, but that would leave it largely about gameplay and thus devoid of real world information. I fail to see how rearranging the sections can make a difference between broad and narrow coverage when the content is the same one way or another. bridies (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No big deal. The paragraph split seems to take care is this. At this point, it would be simply an aesthetic issue. MuZemike 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

1. B. Focused:

   The same issue I noted above with the consistency of naming. Fix that, and this will be OK.

   Corrected per above. MuZemike 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Logo has a good fair-use rationale, and the three game images have been cleared for usage from the copyright holder via OTRS.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   I expanded on the captions on the last two a little as shown here. Remember to follow the five criteria listed at WP:CAPTION for good captions.

5. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I will place this GA review on hold until the issues above can be worked out. Feel free to checkoff/crossoff/whatever anything you have fixed. If any questions/comments/concerns, please respond below; I'll watchlist this page. MuZemike 01:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Everything looks good and now meets all criteria. Good job, ABA Games is now a Good Article! MuZemike 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)