Talk:Game Boy/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator: 23:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 21:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll try and get to this before Sunday next. If you don't see any comments here by then, please ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I spotted two biggies that stood out in the "Games" section. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is Rodrigo Copetti and Brendan's Website valid sources? I've never heard of them before now.
 * None of the launch titles are cited.
 * The Re-releases section in general looks off.
 * Ref 56 uses two references in one citation, they need to be separated.


 * Thanks for these notes. I’ll tackle items 2, 3, and 4 in a day or so.
 * As to Copetti, he’s a self-published author, which can be problematic. However, it’s clearly throughly researched, with sources cited and a change log provided. As self-published sources go, I feel it’s pretty close to perfect.
 * As to Brendan's Website, I would trust it. Here it appears to be a supplemental reference. Nothing there isn’t already supported by the other two refs. We can delete it. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @ProtoDrake I added a new introductory paragraph for the games section and a paragraph on the best-selling Game Boy video games. As requested, I added citations for the launch titles section. I removed the re-releases section, as it really has nothing to do with the Game Boy, but rather the later consoles. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Full review

 * Lead (in progress)
 * "Designed by the team behind the Game & Watch handhelds and NES games (Satoru Okada, Gunpei Yokoi, and R&D1), it was Nintendo's first portable console, combining features from both." - This sentence seems strange. Generic NES games as a whole? I'd rephrase that to focus on who created it.
 * ✅ Did my best to reword the intro in light of this suggestion.
 * General note here, but perhaps cut down on the amount of links to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE
 * ✅ Let me know if even more needs to be done.
 * Development (in progress)
 * There's a lot of in-text Japanese being used here that could be incorporated into footnotes.
 * "...who was also known to encourage the competition between the teams." - This reads oddly. Perhaps "who encouraged competition between teams."? I'm failing to see how this is relevant to the article anyway.
 * ✅ I agree and dropped the sentence from the article.
 * "Satoru Okada developed the Game Boy as a more portable version of the Famicom, inspired by the concept of interchangeable game cartridges." - You haven't introduced the Famicom, and you should drop the "more".
 * ✅ This was a duplicated sentence, so I did a rewrite to address.
 * "Game Boy was unveiled as a prototype in 1987..." - "The Game Boy was unveiled..."
 * ✅ With slightly different wording
 * Hardware
 * In progress...
 * Games
 * In progress...
 * Reception
 * In progress...
 * References (in progress)
 * Check through links to make sure there's consistency. 4Gamer.net and Ars Technica aren't linked, for instance.
 * Also inconsistent linking of websites/publishers such as in Refs 4 and 6.
 * Ref 15 is tagged as needing a better source. Agree.
 * Also, general issue, but there's a list of sources I'd want you to double-check to ensure they were admissible for Wikipedia usage. Listing the ones that jumped out, with notes when possible. This Page may be of help.
 * Ref 10: AllGame (See VG sources page, not typically trusted outside reviews, and this just seems to be an overview without secondary sources)
 * Ref 14: Wiktionary (not sure about the precedent of Wikipedia linking a sister site)
 * Ref 24: gekkio.fi
 * Ref 26: Pan Docs
 * Ref 28: Fruttenboel Gameboy Section
 * Ref 29: 8bitCollective (seems to be a Wiki)
 * Ref 40: tasvideos.org
 * Ref 35 is a WordPress blog, not usable.
 * Ref 35 is a WordPress blog, not usable.

This is a start. I didn't realise just how much of this page might need a question raising or point of writing addressing. I'll do my best to get the rest of this finished sooner rather than later. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll keep working on your suggestions. I realize this GAN review is a bit of a heavy lift, but this topic deserves a good article. You keep making suggestions and we will keep grinding on the improvements. Cheers! -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've done my best to address your concerns about the references. The ones I kept are supplementary, only adding additional detail to information sourced by more established references. I'm hesitant to take them all out. Some are self-published but seem very credible and are referenced by other reputable sources. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This is hard, but having looked over both the article and my own personal allowance of time and investment, I feel I must fail this GAN. Don't be too discouraged, you've done some good work here, but more is needed that can't easily be covered within a GAN. Pages for consoles need some of the hardest and most rigorous sourcing and checking. I recommend bringing this article up to Peer Review, so multiple users can chip in with suggestions, and maybe collaborate with you on expanding. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That’s disappointing. I really do feel like this article is close to GA status. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)