Talk:Space Invaders/GA1

GA Review

Hi, I will be reviewing your article Space Invaders for GA. Looking through it, the article appears very good. I will be adding comments here as I read through it. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reference 35 is to "Space Incader" - you probably mean Space Invader?
• I think the Gameplay section would benefit from being divided into paragraphs for readibility, rather than being a big block of text.
• "The game was in development for a year which was divided between designing the game and developing the necessary hardware" - in most situations "which was" can be eliminated as unnecessary wording. e.g. The game was in development for a year, divided between designing the game and developing the necessary hardware.
• "The game was originally titled Space Monsters, which was inspired by a popular song in Japan at the time ("Monster"), but was changed to Space Invaders by Nishikado's boss." - Same thing - and extra "which was".
• "For example, Space Invaders Extreme, which was released on the Nintendo DS and PlayStation Portable,..." - For example, Space Invaders Extreme, released on the Nintendo DS and PlayStation Portable,..."
• The lead is very good, but it doesn't summarize the article per WP:LEAD.
• Per MOS:LINK#Overlinking_and_underlinking, common words that English-speaking persons can be expected to know should not be wikilinked. Perhaps, Octopus , squid and crabs?
• "Ports on earlier systems..." - as a general reader, I am not sure what "ports" means here.
• I would encourage you to wikilink specialized computer terms or video game terms for the general reader not familiar with video games. (There are such people, really.) Like when you say "vertical shooter game" - what does vertical mean here? Another example, you talk about cabinet format and cocktail-table format.

Thank you for the thorough review. I believe I've addressed the issues you've brought up, except for the lead. I've felt it has been too short, but have not expanded it because I'm not sure what pieces of information to include that won't give them undue weight. Do you have any suggestions? Also, any other comments you have would be appreciated. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

Regarding the Space Monsters thing, I'm not sure where the author got that from. It was originally called Space Monsters because that was the name of an earlier Taito EM machine, of which it was an adaptation of. That was pretty common for the time, as many of the games being put out in the mid 70's were video adaptations of earlier EM games. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It was in an interview with Nishikado. Not sure what to do about the conflicting info. The interview was was fairly recent, so maybe he remembers it differently now than from back then. Is there a source that explicitly states it was an adaptation of the EM machine? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

Article written by Kevin Williams, 25+ year veteran of the arcade industry and current industry insider. When I was site director of the site the article is hosted on and I did the fact checking for editorial oversight, I pulled the flyer image from Taito's own site in Japan, which had a page on Space Monsters and the connection. Its since been taken down, I'll see if I can find an archive of the site. Kevin also had stated that the figures in Space Invaders were actually a test pattern used in testing some of the earlier CPU based Taito game hardware, which I haven't found another resource for. The problem with Nishikado is his story has consistently changed over the years. In interviews he's attributed it to coming to him from a dream where he saw Santa Clause replaced by aliens steeling presents, in another interview he also attributed the game to descriptions of aliens attacking in H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds, there's also where he states the original idea was for conventional airplanes or tanks and he switched to monsters because of the hardware limitations. In this interview he lists both Star Wars and Breakout as major influences on the creation of the game. What's also interesting, is that he also admits to working with EM arcade games originally at Taito. At the very least, I'd add the facts that he did work in EM design as well (from 1969 through 1972 until he switched to video) and there was an earlier Taito EM game called Space Monster that came out from his group (1972). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean about different stories. One article I found stated he had a dream as a child where he and other children were attacked by aliens on their way to school, or something to that effect. I tried to include the most consistent information from the various sources. We had a similar situation with the naming of the Final Fantasy series. I'll try adding in the two sources and present them together. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

Yah, you have to be careful about culling to promote consistency, it can border on WP:OR, and seeks to present a definitive answer where there may not be one. The fact that he's stated so many different versions over the years is notable in itself for inclusion, and puts forth that presenting the variations would be more definitive (as we just discussed). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Re:Lead - perhaps a few more summary statements from the Impact and legacy section. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead has been expanded. Let me know if it's satisfactory. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC))
• Lead is better.
• "Nishikado attributes this to the artist not looking at the in-game graphics..." - attributes this to the artist ignoring the in-game graphics? or alternative wording? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree "not looking at" doesn't sound too professional, but I'm hesitant to use "ignoring" because it sounds like he looked at them and decided to do something else, when I think the interview conveyed that the artist was told the title and drew what he thought would be appropriate. How about "did not view the in-game graphics"? I'm drawing a blank on anything else. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

How about "attributes this to the artist not referring to the in-game graphics?" or "attributes this to the artist not basing the designs on the in-game graphics?" —Mattisse (Talk) 17:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The first one sounds good. I've added it into the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)