Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Neutopia

Neutopia

Just made a 10x expansion on this TurboGrafx-16 classic and The Legend of Zelda ripoff. Basic prose and MoS check-over would be great, and let me know if the "gameplay" section sounds alright, as amazingly that was the hardest section for me to do. –MuZemike 07:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The big thing is the gameplay needs to be condensed to what is essential to understanding the game. That amount isn't. If it were, they there would be plenty of secondary reliable sources commenting on it.

My point still stands that this or the GAN should be closed.陣内 _Jinnai 23:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove that last paragraph as I agree that it's a bit over-detailed as well as redundant to some other portions of that section. I've also switched the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs as I think that reads a little better if I mention characters/items/enemies and then continuing and battery backup at the end.

To that end, I think the section looks and reader more like the "Gameplay" section of The Legend of Zelda (video game), in which this game is similar to. –MuZemike 00:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This can still use some cleanup. FE:

~~The~~ Janta's life meter decreases ~~(i.e. goes from red to white)~~ whenever ~~Jazeta~~ he ~~sustains damage,~~ is hit and the game ends when ~~his life meter~~ it runs out.

You use life meter 3 times in that 1 sentence. For such a short sentence that really breaks up the flow.

I am also checking at MOS about some other stuff.陣内 _Jinnai 15:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other things of note:

A lot of references are questionable imo. There's a number so to be short, the ones from IGN, Gamespot and others on WP:VG/S I'm not worried about, not the primary sources, but can you justify the rest?

First off, the paper sources (such as Game Informer or the German Power Play) should all be reliable, as their publishers are from major video gaming outlets. The only time I use GameFAQs is for the Japanese version's release dates and who published/developed it. Nintendo Life, while independent, operates under a full editorial staff (including reporters, reviewers, and general staff) which provides sufficient basis for fact-checking and oversight (see [1]). Joystiq is a video gaming blog which is owned by AOL; they also operate under a full editorial staff and serves as a chief voice for what happens in the video game industry; see their page [2]). The only one I could argue that is not a high-quality reference is PSNation.org, which the only thing I'm referencing is the game's release for the PlayStation Network. –MuZemike 08:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The citations for instruction manual need to follow the standards for citing a book. You can use {{cite manual}} or {{cite book}}, but put stuff you'd expect to be in every citation there.

I used shorthand citations for the manual, in which I included the full citation at the bottom of the references section. Per WP:CITE, this is acceptable, and this reduces redundancy and "citation clutter". I've been through over a dozen peer reviews, about a dozen GANs, and several FACs, and nobody has complained about this to me until now. –MuZemike 08:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That should be changed. GameFAQs is fine alternate. However, Nintendo Life is not a RS and as for Joystiq, why is Ludwig Kietzmann reliable as that site is a case-by-case?陣内 _Jinnai 15:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for Nintendo Life, see this discussion here which nobody else bothered to chime in on, has people who writes for other video gaming magazines. I have to disagree on its "unreliability" there. As for Joystiq, see the one editor's background here; I think that's quite enough experience, though I still argue that the claim (that Neutopia was released on the VC alongside Super Metroid and Shinobi III: Return of the Ninja Master) is relatively minor. –MuZemike 18:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with Nintendo Life, but this is a PR, not a GAN, so its up to you whether to keep it. Just know it will be hard to defend it when others don't seem to agree.陣内 _Jinnai 22:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Go over it for proper italics. I notice several times a game is mentioned, Zelda FE, the full or shortened version isn't italicized.~~

I only saw one instance in which "Zelda" wasn't italicized, after doing a Ctrl+F on the article, and that was in the "Development and reception" section, which I corrected here. The only instance in which "Neutopia" is not italicized (in the "Plot" section) is correct, as I am referring to the titular setting and not the game itself. Otherwise, I do not see what else needs to be italicized; AFAIK, online-only websites do not get italicized. –MuZemike 08:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move the citations into their own notes section. There are a couple ways to do this. Check out WP:FOOTNOTE.陣内 _Jinnai 05:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not understanding. All the citations are in a "References" section. Unless you want me to separate the full book and video game full citations into a "References" section and place everything else into a "Notes" section like what was done with Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System). I mean, it seems like a waste of a section for only two citations. –MuZemike 08:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I see what you did. Please use proper {{cite video game}}. Also all of your citations should be done within proper citation formats as that will raise issues in FAC and possibly GAN if they aren't. I'm surprised you didn't at the FAC with Ninja Gaiden. I'm also surprised they didn't make you change the first instance of Instruction manual to spell out specifically what game it was for. I doubt you'd get so lucky a second time.陣内 _Jinnai 15:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue that someone brought up was connecting them to the full citations, which I did there; however, {{cite video game}} currently lacks a "ref" parameter (unlike nearly all the other citation templates). In any case, it's counterproductive to readers to have to read citation after citation of "Hudson Soft. Neutopia. (NEC). TurboGrafx-16. (1990)" and then the relevant quote. –MuZemike 18:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To put it bluntly, I would expect that in an FAC at least the first instance because WP:CITE does not give an exception for such to assume it means the game's instruction manual and such as been demanded of my articles.陣内 _Jinnai 22:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I don't know what else you are expecting from the article. I have built this article up just about the same way I have had with all the other ones; I don't see how I am all of a sudden running into a multitude of problems. –MuZemike 08:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The development and release part should be seperated from the reveption sections should be separated. Those aren't normally combined sections and there is enough there to make 2 separate sections.陣内 _Jinnai 15:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not counting the "preview coverage" I barely have half a paragraph of development information, that's why I combined them. Keep in mind that this is a 1989 video game, and you're not going to have much for development info, as video game coverage wasn't that as extensive back then as it is now. –MuZemike 18:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough development and release info to make 2 sections. The article seems to have several really long sections and could be better divided. A single paragraph is fine. Development really doesn't have anything to do with reception. I mean with that logic, gameplay and plot should be combined because the plot section is only slightly longer.陣内 _Jinnai 22:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]