Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Joe Danger/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Danger

Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Hiya, just going to peer review this again. The prose is what I'm looking to fix, essentially. A lot of gaming jargon could be simplified by another pair of eyes, I think. Just generally helping out finding prose issues before another FAC in the future. Thanks! — Joseph Fox 18:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Note: At the recent FAC I agreed to give this article a review and copyedit, prior to any FAC resubmission. I mistakenly thought, then, that it had not previously received a proper peer review – the "article milestones" history was incomplete at the time – but I have since seen that it did in fact have a rather full review from Jappalang, who is a first class details man (I often ask him to review my own work). So I am fairly confident that it will be the prose, rather than general issues, that will need attention. As I work through the copyedit I will raise here any points which I think need further explanation. With that in mind, can I have a quick answer to a point which I raised at the FAC: If the deal with Sony was "exclusive", how come that within a year or so the game had been signed up with Xbox, particularly after Murray's "slaughterhouse" comment? What's the story here? Brianboulton (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, and once again a sincere thanks for this offer. The Xbox release came on the day I opened the FAC (how's that for luck, hey?) so I will need to find sources to explain the sudden about-face by Hello Games. I can guess, from precedents set by other formerly exclusive games, that the exclusivity period (taken on to take advantage of Sony's "pub fund" described in the Development and Release section) simply ran out, allowing them to branch out to the Xbox 360. As I say, the commitment he gave to the PS3 makes this move really rather odd and difficult to put into an article describing at length why he chose *not* to publish with Microsoft; it should be doable, however, given the sources. — Joseph Fox 11:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that issue can wait until we have a bit more information. In the meantime I have copyedited the lead and "Gameplay" sections. You had better check, since I am "writing blind", as they say (in other words I've no Idea what I'm writing about). Please correct any egregious mistakes. A few issues/comments arise from my copyediting so far:-

Lead
  • "The player controls the titular daredevil...": "titular" is not the right word here; in this usage it means "in name only". The correct word is "eponymous" (though some may think this a little exclusive, so I've linked it)
    Oh, right, thanks for that. :)
  • Is the sentence "After the release Murray gave several presentations on the difficulties of getting work published" significant enough to warrant mention in the lead?
    Hmm, guess not, no. Removed.
Gameplay
  • "This mode is integrated into some single-player levels, and introduces obstacles that the player must remove in the editor." What obstacles, and what does "remove in the editor" mean? When does this removal take place?
    I'll go with the other aspect of this, the player being made to insert ramps and things to jump over other things.
  • What is "friend-limited leaderboard support"?
    I'm not sure how to explain this in article text while maintaining FA standards of prose, so I might just explain it here. It means that high scores are kept on a leaderboard, but they are only compared to friends on the player's Playstation Network friends list, as opposed to with everyone who has played the game. Yeah?

Another instalment soon. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies above. — Joseph Fox 03:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More: I have copyedited to the first three paragraphs of the "Development and release" section. I have problems understanding the fourth paragraph
    • "...the developer announced in March 2010 that they would be releasing the game only on Sony's PlayStation." Presumably by "the developer" you mean Hello Games? But isn't there something missing? You mention the difficulties the team had in finding a publisher, but don't say how Sony Computer Entertainment came on the scene - in fact, you don't even mention them. That needs to be clarified.
      • The sentences following the one you quote explain about Sony's Pub Fund, which seems to be the reason for the move to PS3.
    • "Downloadable bonus Chuckles the Chimp, the most popular character suggestion from players,[4] is a reference to a rejection from one publisher who had asked for the main character to be a monkey." Sorry, I don't know what this means - can you explain?
      • The prospective publisher (who Murray has never named) told them that the company would publish their game if the character were a monkey - and not the human he is in the final version. They were open to suggestions from fans for bonus character ideas, and "a monkey" was the most popular, so along came Chuckles.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified to the best of my ability. — Joseph Fox 15:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem: "In October 2011, Eurogamer picked up on an Xbox Live Arcade listing for a Joe Danger: Special Edition on the Korea Media Rating Board; the edition was officially announced the following week." That last statement is cited to here; this is not an "official announcement". To me it does not look as though it qualifies as a reliable source. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced this source with a more appropriate one from Hello Games themselves. — Joseph Fox 15:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I have problems with these two sentences:_
  • "Murray stood by his earlier statements criticising Microsoft's platform, explaining that he referred to Live Arcade's initial "guarantee of success" that was no longer the case for the majority of releases." Sorry, this bears no relation to his original comment, so I don't understand what he means.
  • "He stressed the developer's change of face was not financially motivated, but that it "made business sense" to release the game on a larger platform." Completely contradicting himself, I think. What's the difference between "financially motivated" and "business sense"? I can't check what he actually said, because the source requires registration/login (nd needs to be indicated as succ). Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of these are issues with my dreadful paraphrasing I feel. The former was a mightily long quote to begin with for I'll see what I can do with that, the latter is just wrong. — Joseph Fox 15:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Later I've finished my copyedit, subject to your dealing with the points I've raised. Before taking the article back to FAC I'd recommend two things:-

  • Get an editor with computer game knowledge and experience to look it over. I have worked on grammar and clarity of expression, but I don't know anything about the terminology of computer games and I may inadvertently have changed the meaning.
  • Go through all the references, and make sure that the text reflects accurately what they are saying. In a few cases where I have checked this has shown to be not quite the case.

When you're finally done, perhaps you'd ping my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I forgot to mention: "The team announced at the Develop Conference 2010 that they broke even on the day of release."[55] This does not seem to be the right source for this information. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Joe_Danger/archive2&oldid=463999515"