Jump to content

Talk:Blazing Star/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 14:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

[edit]
  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - Article is B class already, however was promoted by the nominee. Article generally seems reasonably broad and well written.
  • It contains copyright infringements - None found yet
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - No tags on article
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - Last 50 edits, over 30 are from the same editor, so no edit warring!
[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede & infobox

[edit]
  • Blazing Star is a shoot 'em up video game published by SNK in 1998 for the Neo Geo arcade and home systems. It was developed by Yumekobo as a follow-up to Pulstar (1995), a game which they developed when previously known as Aicom. The game features side-scrolling action similar to its predecessor and a host of different ships with varying characteristics. The player can use a standard shot, rapid shot, or a focused charge attack which can be dispersed to cover a wide area. - I'm not a fan of this style of lede, where there is information regarding the developer in a seperate place to the publisher, as they should have equal merit. I'd suggest something like Blazing Star is a shoot 'em up video game developed by Yumekobo and published by SNK in 1998 for the Neo Geo arcade and home systems. Yumekobo developed Blazing Star as a ....
    • Fixed
  • - Is it important that the team were previously known as Aicom, for a seperate game?
    • Maybe not for the lead, removed
  • - "Host" is quite a leading word, and are the different shots that the ships make lede worthy?
    • I'm not sure what you mean about "host", I don't know what a leading word is. And I removed the details about the different types of shots
  • The game's title was chosen after a series of conversations between the development team, company president, and SNK on whether to associate the game with Pulstar or not.- This is potentially wording that could be used in the text, but doesn't really summerize anything in the lede.
    • Removed
  • Blazing Star was made less challenging than its predecessor, and the team spent time improving the graphics quality as well - Wording. Consider talking about the game, rather than the team in the lede.
    • Reworded
  • It was released to mixed reviews, but it has received greater recognition in retrospective reviews when rereleased on smartphones and through the ACA Neo Geo series. Critics have praised the boss battles and graphics, but criticized the uneven stage design.- Should be its own paragraph, as it is talking about something unrelated.
    • OK
  • This should have more information on contemporary reviews rather than ones after-the-fact.
    • I added more

Gameplay

[edit]
  • Section is quite short, considering there's no related plot section for the game.
    • There isn't anything further to discuss. The plot in this game (and most shooters) is not important and not discussed by RSs so any further plot details would be WP:UNDUE. Plot can be grouped in with gameplay per WP:VGORDER.
      • Actually, I had no issues with the plot & Gameplay being merged into one. Just seemed like the section should be a bit longer, considering gameplay should be the major focus in a game such as this.
        • Are there any details you feel were overlooked? Compared with most genres, shmups are relatively simple.
  • Section is also not well written, with the prose changing from gameplay (it being a shoot-em-up) to the plot (about Cyborgs), and back to gameplay in one paragraph.
    • Can you suggest a better alternative?
    • Another passing comment: this format is extremely common in articles where a plot section is absent. See examples like Donkey Kong 64 (a FA) and Sonic Blast (a GA). JOEBRO64 23:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did see the Sonic Blast example. Seems ok with those examples, but I'd prefably want information about the plot, and then the gameplay.
        • I parsed out the plot introduction from the remainder of the paragraph. I do not want to lead with the plot because that implies it's important, starting with "Blazing Star is about cyborgs..." or something. Likewise putting it at the end feels tacked on.
  • Mentions (two button control scheme), this should be explained in more detail
  • Tapping the fire button will unleash a standard shot, or it can be tapped rapidly for a different shot type, or held down for a charge attack. Upon releasing the fire button during a charge, it will unleash a powerful focused shot, but the second button can be pressed to disperse this attack to cover a large area with smaller bullets mentioning the actual buttons pressed seems quite WP:GAMEGUIDEy to me. I'd just mention that there are different types of shots available, rather than how to activate them, unless important.
    • In the previous two bullets, you say the control scheme should be expanded in more detail, but then you say mentioning the actual buttons seems game guidey. I agree more with your second bullet, however, how the shooting mechanics work are important in shooters as it's a key characteristic that sets it apart from others. Just saying there are different types of shots is too broad.
      • Hmm, I think I was simply looking for something that said what the two-buttons did, such as fire and special attack buttons, or fire and directional buttons, etc. Saying that you have to hold down the button to do a particular move seems a little guidey to me; unless there was something that set it apart from other games (I don't know much about these types of games, but I do know certain games only have powerups that allow you to change attacks.)
        • "it will unleash a powerful focused shot which can be dispersed to cover a large area with smaller bullets if desired." - I'm not a fan of this wording either. "if desired" seems superfluous
          • I removed "if desired", but if the other wording sounds bad, suggest an alternative please because I'm having trouble to explain this mechanic otherwise. Basically if you hold down the fire button to charge a shot then release it, you fire a really powerful shot, however if you press another button when the shot is being fired, it will break up the shot and spread little bullets everywhere. It is optional to disperse the shot.

Development

[edit]
  • Do we not know who the President was at Yumekobo?
    • It's not stated in the interview and I don't want to WP:SYNTH something up, because it could have changed at different times.
    • Fair enough. Should probably say "the current president", or similar, no big deal though.
      • Done
  • Is it important that the game is named after a plant? Seems like Trivia to me. Lots of games or names in general share names with other objects.
    • The game is not named after the plant. It was a coincidence, and since the flower is the common topic I think it's worth a footnote.
      • Sorry, my mistake.
  • If "creating impressive scenery" is the actual goal of the game, it should be quoted.
    • It's not a direct quote, paraphrased
  • Yumekobo believed the game's best selling point was its detailed graphics - Who in Yumekobo said this?
    • It's not attributed to anyone in the interview, just Yumekobo staff.
  • Overall, a good section, barring a couple of instances above

Release

[edit]
  • Very little information in this section. I understand it's an older game, but 1998 isn't really old enough to not know anything about the release at all.
    • 1998 is more recent but it's a Neo Geo game. Neo Geo games did not get much coverage, unfortunately.
  • There's a lot of consoles that the game have been re-released for; so I'd want some information as to how they were released, outside of the one entry beinng released in eShop.
    • What further information are you looking for? I'm not sure what else to add.
      • Well, were they physical releases, or simply download only? Were these ports, or reimagining, or the quality of these ports.
        • They're nothing special, just emulation. I used the term "rerelease" as opposed to "port" to make this clear. Writing out that it's emulation feels strange to me. I feel with old games, it's expected to be emulation unless stated otherwise. I already mentioned any notable differences or features. I added that the Switch and PS4 and XBONE releases were digital.
  • Is the Neo Geo Mini notable?
    • Most certainly, which is why I red linked it. There are enough sources out there to write an article on it. WP:REDLINK

Reception

[edit]
  • Would a table for reviews for contemporary sources also make sense? There seems to be at least a few reviews here.
    • No because only one publication gave a score. I placed it in prose.
  • There are two sections that are made up of one paragraph each. These should potentially be more paragraphs
    • I don't understand. Are you saying there should be more reception info added or the current paragraphs should be parsed out? There are no more reviews out there.
      • No, simply that the paragraphs should be split. Just because a paragraph is all on one subject, doesn't mean it can go on forever.
        • I split the retrospective paragraph because I agree it was long. I can't find a way to split the first paragraph that would improve it. It's only five lines, same length as paragraphs in development and gameplay. :\
  • No mention of the Metacritic score from the Switch Release? [1]
    • WP:VG/REC Fewer than four RSs are used in the aggregate. Omitted on purpose.
      • Wow, you learn something new everyday. I always read that as being 4 reviews (For there to be a Metacritic score), not for them all to be a RS.
  • Reviewing the Arcade Archives release, Nintendo Life called it a perfect port is this a quote?
    • Fixed
  • otherwise, the reception is pretty good.

Legacy

[edit]
  • The game is sometimes remembered for its Engrish text.[2][21] Some articles, including one by linguist Ben Zimmer, have cited the game's game over message, “You fail it", as inspiring the popular interjection "Fail".[22][23][24] remember acording to whom?
    • Fixed
  • Should probably mention what Engrish is (Poorly translated), rather than simply having a Wikilink
    • Fixed

Notes & References

[edit]
  • references look pretty good, and well formatted. However, a lot are in foreign language sources, so I can't do too much with this information.

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Despite a few issues, the article just about meets GA requirements. Thank you TarkusAB for your time, and congratulations. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: responded to all points above. Thank you Lee for your review. TarkusABtalk 20:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TarkusAB - I've added just a few trivial things, if you let me know when you are happy with it, I'll give it another read through, and give it a review. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: responded TarkusABtalk 21:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TarkusAB - Thank you for your time, and responses. I will sweep the article once more, and review. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blazing_Star/GA1&oldid=863375701"