Talk:Wild Guns

Merge Request

Merge. Same game, isnt it? Salavat 08:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is. I'll go ahead and merge them. Hattes 19:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wild Guns/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 02:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I'm reviewing this article for Good Article status. Comments forthcoming! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	INTRO - Should say when the game was released on virtual console to give a sense of context, how long after original release. wikilink "cooperative mode" not enough people even know what it is! :) "featuring original gameplay" - original, like this game? Or original like brand new gameplay? Will this new game have the same settings, characters or gameplay? This is unclear. The concept drawing images caption is a complete sentence, so it should end with a period. GAMEPLAY - Who says "Clint doesn't need assistance" - the narrator? Clint? Wikilink vendetta The D pad sentence could easily be added to the sentence before it. DEVELOPMENT - Who subcontracted them for the project? Not in source, reworded it's a support staff instead of substaff. 32 bit hardware - such as? May be good to mention which machine was considered compared to the super Nintendo . a viable concept" perhaps "as were the characters" need more context on what a "Cobra manga" is. "by the film RoboCop 3." That way you don't need the 1993. see if we can wikilink Roland W-30 keyboard "side by side: this, however, proved to be cumbersome..." This makes those sentence linked, which they should be. RECEPTION - do we know why the game was delayed? Not in source, unknown "as the games strongest points" did the reviewers compare it positively or negatively to the neo geo game? Just said it was similar
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article could easily do a three paragraph lead. Legacy should probably be a subsection of Reception since its small.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All the references are there, and they all resolve correctly according to the check links tool. Many authors and publishers are missing and need to be added to their references. Also, some website references are missing accessdates and other references are missing dates. And questions; are the Allgame overview, STG Gameside, Gamesetwatch, and www.ne.jp reliable sources? All Game and GameSetWatch are reliable sources according to the VG sources page. STG Gameside is a published work in Japan so I presumed it is reliable. The ne.jp page is an interview with the developer which I think was originally from a publication. It's hard to source directly because the info I got is from Shmuplations which does translations of old dev interviews in Japanese publication archives. I can look into it more if this presents an issue, but I don't doubt its legitimacy. The North America release appears to lack an official release date, just a year and month. I could not find a single date
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I did spot checks on a few references, and everything mentioned in the article is backed up by the source.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Is all of the last paragraph in the Development section from the source at the end of it? Otherwise lots of in-line citations. Yes all in the same source
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Ran the copyright violation checker, zero detectable levels of violation.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article stays on target and does not stray.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Everything is summarized nicely.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias is shown in the article toward the subject matter.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Very stable, the only activity is the nominators improvements.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The first and third images need to have their tags fixed since they are still not marked as to whether they have fair use rationales or not (in both cases the answer is clearly yes. The first images rationale also seems to say "na" to questions that could be answered as to why there cannot be any free use images swapped. I think these are all set
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images are necessary and well captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article looks very good, just needs a bunch of pros tweaking as far as I can see. I'll put it on hold for seven days, and thank you so much for your patience while I've been on vacation! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the message. I'll see about getting to some of this stuff this weekend. But I'll be going on vacation in less than a week. So it may not be until after the 4th that I can really start to look at it. Just an FYI. TarkusAB 20:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know @TarkusAB:, I was on vacation myself for a bit I wanted to give you a high-quality review. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Judgesurreal777:, I am back from break. I will get to fixing this article and finishing the review of SaGa Frontier 2 soon. I have some other stuff to work on as well, but I will not forget about these two things. May be the weekend before I get to it. Thanks for your patience. TarkusAB 01:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a few more @TarkusAB:! Almost a GA. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

OK I think that is everything @Judgesurreal777:, again, thanks for your patience on this one. TarkusAB 13:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations! Everything looks good, great job getting the all of the things I had raised fixed. No worries, I am very patient :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Organization:

I somewhat re-organized the article a bit. I'm trying to follow the model of games like Sakura Wars (video game), which had an original release, and then a later enhanced remake. In that article it's organized: Gameplay --> Plot --> Development --> Release --> Reception. The PS2 remake is included under Release, and reception covers both the original and remake.

That model could work for Wild Guns. An alternative is to take all of the information in Reloaded and put it into its own section, and add its own infobox.

Alternatively, we could treat Wild Guns and Reloaded as simply one game. This would mean the infobox would include both the information on the snes release, as well as the Reloaded release. This is likely how the page would be written if the time-span between the versions was relatively short.

What makes the most sense? Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Reloaded is a very different game, so I don't think they should share an infobox. I think what you did is fine. TarkusAB^talk 12:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Coverage

Reloaded had a lot of coverage in the media, including new interviews. Here's one from Dengeki online. It should cover info on both the original game and the re-release. There's tons more out there, especially in Japanese.

I guarantee that Famitsu reviewed the original. It's just not on the site. If we can find that, it'd be nice to have their review numbers for both the original and the re-release. The reception section for Reloaded can also be expanded. Also, Game Center CX did an episode on Wild Guns, which could be another source of info for basic information. It's a mix of documentary sections and reality tv game show where a man has to beat the games. They include sections covering bits of information about the game. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

All good points, I just haven't had the time to flesh out that part of the article and I don't think there's anyone else interested in doing it. TarkusAB^talk 12:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Found a review in German language Mega Fun that was pretty mediocre, giving it just 66% score for fun. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

European release date:

What source is there for the October 30, 1996 release date in Europe? Maniac's website lists July 1995 as a date. Super Play (UK) reviewed the JP version in issue 24 (Oct 1994), and in issue 31 (May 1995), did a small write up of the game and listed the review score in their "New to the UK" section. That implies the game released, or intended to be soon released.

I know nothing about the game, I'm just a bit confused based on what I've read. And nothing in the body discusses the EU release. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Double checking, it looks like Maniac is referencing the issue the review came out in, not when the game came out. But the general point still remains: all the EU mags were reviewing the game ina period in mid 1995, not a year and a half later. Plus, searching for the Oct 30, 1996 release date doesn't seem to bring up anything. The most parsimonious analysis seems to be that the 96 date is in error. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)