Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Major League Baseball (video game)

Major League Baseball (video game)

I wrote this article and recently had it featured in DYK. Doing this increased its visibility and brought in one editor who corrected a very crucial mistake in the article. Anyhow, I was wondering what could be done to bring this article up to Good Article status... it's somewhat of a challenge given the difficulty of finding reputable sources, but I'm willing to put it under scrutiny and put in the necessary work to improve it. Thanks and Cheers, CP 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting challenge. Especially since it seems like the game sucked. I think the most valuable reviews would be if you were to actually dig up the physical paper magazines of the time (egads) and use them as contemporary source material.

Comment Hmmm... that would be good, but I wouldn't know where I could get that. Where could I look to find them? Cheers, CP 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One area the article needs to address is the competitive field of baseball games of that era, especially on NES. It should discuss all the other games and how they compared to each other. These days you wouldn't consider an article on a Take-Two (American) football game without comparing it in the article to Madden.

Comment Wouldn't that be a bit POV though? I haven't seen any sources for the game that compare it to other games. I suppose that I could compare hardware specifications, but that's about it. One thing that I did add, however, were the two previous NES games and the fact that RBI Baseball had a MLBPA license, but not a MLB one. Cheers, CP 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article says the game is notable because it's one of the first MLB licenses, which I don't think you can say, since they started doing it 8 years previously on Intellivision. It being notable for being the first MLB license on NES, I guess so, but the notability seems marginal. It would be more notable if it were universally hated or something and the article could point out why.
In general notability is kind of a problem for the article. We want the reader to not keep thinking "Why should I care about this game?" An easy way to do this would be to frame the whole thing in the context of a video game that was properly licensed and had real player lineups with good attention to those details, but the game sucked for various reasons and so here 20 years later nobody cares about the good licensing and planning in that area.
Sales data would be good especially compared to other NES baseball games.

Comment Same comment as with the paper magazines... if you have an idea where I could find this information, let me know and I'll happily incorporate it. Cheers, CP 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First video game on NES of any sport for licensing and lineups?

Done Good catch, thanks! Cheers, CP 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need to cite a source that the publisher was terrible.

Done Or just remove a somewhat POV statement. Cheers, CP 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would be good to explicitly explain how the game project was initiated. It is written as though the developer initiated the project, but it is more likely that the publisher obtained the license and then approached the developer to create the game. And of course this treatment could be even more interesting if a source were to note that they were only picked because they were cheap, or whatever.
The "Gameplay" section repeats a lot of the first couple of paragraphs.
Need to clarify "the game prohibits one from putting out more team members in a certain part of the field than would normally be allowed", which sounds like it's just enforcing the rules of baseball.

Comment It is, but it's used to emphasize the importance of managerial decisions. Cheers, CP 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article should describe the game first and then talk about the managerial angle and then talk about "gameplay issues" by which you mean to say "popular criticisms" or "flaws".
The graphics were not "considered to be three dimensional"; the source cited for that statement doesn't mention such a thing. It might be more accurate to talk about the perspective being different or more accurate than other baseball games — if this is even true, or mentioned in a citable source.
I don't think 'music and sound effects' is worth keeping, there's nothing notable in the section. Lack of background music is standard in games of that era, especially sports games.

Tempshill 20:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I shall look over your suggestions in more detail in a day or so. One thing though... shouldn't "PC Booter" be kept as is? As in, it was released specifically for that type of disk rather than just the PC (ie. Windows or something else) in general?

I've done what I can for now, but a lot of that is tough. I'll see what I can do in the next few days, also taking into account the GA Reviewer's comments whenever they arrive. Cheers, CP 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Una Laguna

This is pretty good as it is. Of the articles I've peer reviewed, this is the first which is reasonably well-sourced and has fair use rationales for all images (and there are a lot!). However, there's still some way to go to get this to GA. Here are a few things you can occupy yourself with:

Lead needs expansion per WP:LS.

Done Still a bit POV, but hopefully okay? Cheers, CP 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV seems to be an issue here. Much of the article relies on reviews, which means that the description of the game is done with a critical slant. Using reviews as references is fine, but you're painting a very negative picture of the game. A good way to start would be to go through and get rid of anything which is opinion rather than fact (e.g. [The graphics] do little more than get the job done). If I were you I'd try to keep critical opinions confined to the "reception" section. Finding more non-critical sources would help.

Done I think. I tried to keep the facts to objective descriptions, though I may have missed a bit... Cheers, CP 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Reception and legacy" section needs expansion. It mentions the fact that the game was met with "mixed reviews", but only briefly describes one negative review and one middling review. If it really received "mixed" reviews, then surely that means there should be negative, average and positive reviews?

Done Hopefully improved, although it was a bit difficult to find much to say about the positive reviews. Cheers, CP 22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should split up the "Features" section into a number of sections. If it was me, I'd split it up into Gameplay, Technology (graphics and audio, as two subsections), and development if there's enough information to justify it (currently there only seems to be the piece of information about Enteractive). Take a look at some VG featured articles to get a better idea of how game articles are laid out.

Done I used 3D Monster Maze as a guideline (somewhat) mixed with your suggestions. Sadly, it's tough to write very much objectively about the almost non-existent music and SFX. Maybe I shouldn't split it into sub-sections? Cheers, CP 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Game play" is usually spelt "Gameplay".

Done Cheers, CP 19:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to convert the references to use the relevant template at WP:CITET.

Done Cheers, CP 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps, Una Laguna^Talk 11:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I think implementing your suggestions drastically improved the quality of the article! Any other suggestions (or corrections to my fixes) would be greatly appreciated from you or anyone! Cheers, CP 22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quick. The lead is much better now, as it gives an overview of everything in the article. I think on the POV front you've gone as far as you'll be able to. It should be fine now. I would suggest merging the "Features" section into the "Gameplay" section, as this is what most other articles do. As it stands, much of the gameplay section describes problems with the game. I'd suggest moving this info to its own section/subsection (can't remember which is more appropriate, check the policy page). This would mean that the "Gameplay" section would become quite big: to reduce its size remove any information only relevant to someone who plays the game (if that's applicable). "Reception" section is fine now by my books; though not positive reviews the positive info given is positive so that should be fine.

Done I took a break to wake up my tired mind, decided it would be appropriate to play the game during the break (Jays came back to a 28-12 victory against the Rangers) and tried to implement this last suggestion. Maybe I'm tired, but I sort of implemented it very literally, which may not have been what you intended. In any case, I don't think it's too large, so I didn't remove anything. Cheers, CP 04:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of new points: you might want to go through and do a proof-read as there are a few basic mistakes which a proof-read would get rid of. Examples:

Who is Jim Mortland? Which website does he write for?

Done Wish I can say more about him, or the other reviewers, but only GameFAQs has a Wikilink. Cheers, CP 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Major League Baseball" should be in italics as it's a title of a game.

Done I think I got the rest of the game titles as well. Cheers, CP 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to avoid using the same word too much in the same short piece of text. Example with the word "claim": Gamespot's review gives it a 1.4 out of 10 calling it "abysmal" and claiming that it "borders on unplayable." The review claims that is best features are...

Done This one is just embarrassing, as it's something I always point out when I edit essays. I cleared up as many of these as I could without stretching the definition unreasonably. Cheers, CP 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captions for images should have periods on the end. Even if they're fragments with no verb. Like this sentence.

Done Cheers, CP 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, look at the wikilinks used. There are seemingly pointless links to articles such as "hell" and "crowd" which shouldn't be there. Take a look at WP:MOSLINKS then go through and amend the article as required.

Done Cheers, CP 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not far from GA now! Una Laguna^Talk 09:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions have all been implemented, at least to some degree, though I think I missed the point on that merging one. Thank you once again! Cheers, CP 04:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job. Some new points again, though:

Very minor, but in articles such as Half-Life 2 and 3D Monster Maze the references come after the "See Also" section and before the "External links" section.

Done Cheers, CP 01:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Running on from the above point - sort of - is the fact that the external links section is rather empty. There may not be many to add (if at all) due to the game's age, but have a look at WP:EL and see what you can find.

After reading WP:EL, I've decided to skip this one, mainly because of the first criteria, about not adding external links just because there aren't many. The only thing I could think of would be if LJN had a specific page on their website - but since LJN doesn't have a website, I would be surprised if Acclaim had a page (and they don't) Cheers, CP 01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CITE#HOW, there shouldn't be a space in between the text and the in-line citation (e.g. ...the first game for the Nintendo Entertainment System to carry official licensing and lineups. ^[1] should be ......licensing and lineups.^[1])

Done Cheers, CP 01:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove phrases such as that was and that had where they're redundant.

Done Cheers, CP 01:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a part of a sentence myself, because I felt it didn't really add much (you can find out most things with the Internet, and "buff" isn't a particularly encyclopedic term).

Do all this stuff correctly, and I think you'll be ready to submit it as a GAC. The only thing they might have a problem with is the "Gameplay issues" section due to POV (depending on how they look at it). Alternatively, I may just be being paranoid. If the GA reviewer does come up with an issue then they'll give you time to fix it. Una Laguna^Talk 06:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again! If there's nothing else, I think I'll submit this to GAC tomorrow... Cheers, CP 01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I agree that it's ready for GAC. And the genius is, if there's something wrong they tell you what it is you need to do. The only place you might slip up on is the lack of External Links (it's odd that there's only one, but like you say there aren't any more links to add, so if this issue is brought up just say that there aren't any more to add), and the Gameplay Issues section, depending on how the reviewer looks at it (but I think it should be fine). Good luck! You fully deserve the reward of getting it up to GA! Una Laguna^Talk 05:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]