Talk:Streets of Rage Remake

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Streets of Rage Remake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 04:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing life to this well-written article that you have clearly put some good work into. I think this is unfortunately a WP:QF on the basis that it is a long way from satisfying breadth of coverage of the topic. This is mostly because the article largely lacks what I would consider sufficient sourcing.

The available sources have WP:SIGCOV and commentary about the circumstances of the creation and shutdown of the game, such as the Kotaku and Wired sources. What the article lacks is evidence of reception from reliable sourcing such as WP:VG/S usual for WP:VG/MOS. Currently, the Sydney Morning Herald is the only source that evidences an independent opinion about the game. Given that [7] is trivial coverage, this is a very limited evidence base for an article, most sources of which did not play the game and are only talking about its surrounding circumstances and what the release information states. This makes it what could theoretically be a sound candidate for a WP:MERGE with the overarching series, although I do not propose to do this.

I understand this may be disappointing but remember that this process can only improve articles, and encourage you to see if there is sourcing out there to build up this article. You may like to check out the Internet Archive and the WP:VG/SE as different approaches if you have not done so already, although the conflation with Streets of Rage may make this a little tricky. Remember that the GAN process has no fetters and you can resubmit a GAN at any time. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Replying to PrimalMustelid regarding notability

Hi @PrimalMustelid:, thanks for continuing to work on the article. The Play Magazine source is a good find but it's primary an interview, which doesn't add notability. The academic sources are using the game as an example, but it doesn't appear to be the primary topic. I am wondering if it would be feasible to merge into the Streets of Rage article? IgelRM (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, while I wouldn't be totally opposed to a merge to the franchise page (it does talk about it in a paragraph at least), I think the main issue might be regarding the boundary between official and unofficial content within an official franchise page. Based on what I can tell, fangames, whether or not they saw the day of light, are generally either briefly mentioned on Wikipedia pages (Metroid in the case of the canceled remake AM2R) or they don't get mentioned at all (Pokémon page in the case of the released Pokémon Uranium, various fan remakes that got canceled before they got to see the day of light because of threats of legal actions by the likes of Sega, Nintendo, Konami, and Rockstar Games). PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It would have to be under a Legacy section, but I see the issue that it could be too much as an article about the official series. But we would trim the length, which then would be more like a redirect. If Pokemon Uranium has an article, mentioning it under Legacy of Pokemon is appropriate. I suppose AM2R and Uranium have more sources, but their notability does seem not that different.

The Third Éditions book source (could wikilink) is in depth, although not mainstream, and maybe that is sufficient. I did not really realize there are so many similar articles already. Personally I think a list of fan games article would feel more appropriate than having so many articles on these with reporting on legal actions against them. IgelRM (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think a case could be made that if a fanmade game has sufficient sourcing (i.e. some other mentioned articles along with Chrono Resurrection), then it could have its own article whereas those that don't could simply be mentioned in a fan games list article. I'm personally not up to the task of a fan games list article, though, list articles aren't my thing. I think cases like this article and Pokémon Uranium are notable and unique because they were officially briefly available before download links were taken down, although the latter differed from the former in the devs wishing to respect the game company's wishes rather than face potential legal consequences as Streets of Rage Remake had.

On that note, I did expand this article a bit more, do you think it needs anything else? PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your view and I was just my take anyway (I also removed the template with the recent sources like RockPaperShotgun, Diàn Ruǎn etc). I would put aftermath under reception, rename it analysis(?) and maybe shorten a bit. The RetroManiac mention seems trivial and is the SMH source related? Also in the lead, takedown criticized by scholars seems dubious. IgelRM (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Streets of Rage Remake/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 11:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: NatwonTSG2 (talk · contribs) 14:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This article should be easy for me to review so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Review

I would given you more information but this is all I got and some could be suggests so.

Lead

• P1 S2: Replace based on with of and the game series with the series.

Gameplay

• P1 S1: italicize Streets of Rage.
• P1 S2: Replace fan-made game with fangame.

Development and release

• P1 S6: italicize Rock Paper Shotgun.
• P2 S9 italicize Kotaku.

• P3 S1: italicize and change Wired.co.uk to Wired UK or Wired.

Additional info

I don't seems anything to be fix for the reception section and you seems to did a great job on the article so.

Spot check:

• 6: fine
• 7: fine

NatwonTSG2 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I addressed all the suggestions for this article. Thanks for reviewing it! PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I had read the article a few more times for any more problems, other than organizing the categories and also you forgot to replace game series and in addition franchise with series, everything here seems perfect and as soon you fix those changes, I will be promoting this article. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Great, and addressed the loose ends. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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.