Talk:Girl's Garden/GA1

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

Reviewer: DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) 21:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Before I start to review this article, I want to point out that this is my first time doing so. I have picked this article over others longer awaiting review because I'm positive that due to its size and limited scope, it is well-suited for a beginner to review. Furthermore, User:TarkusAB seems to be a seasoned editor who clearly knows what he is doing given his history of GA on the topic, so I hope I can provide some assisstance with this review. If any other users wish to give my advice on how to do a proper review, please feel free to contact me, as I appreciate any input.

1. Is it well-written?
In short, yes. Tried to look for any grammar mistakes, errors and the like and could not find any. The layout seems perfectly fine to me. One thing I would suggest though, is removing or replacing the word "cute" from the head section. It seems very vague and clichée to me, thus I would consider it a word to watch. It seems to be taken from one of the sources, but I would suggest moving it into the legacy section as a direct quote if it has to stay.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
Yes, the article is meticulously sourced, I could not find a single claim without verification from reliable sources.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?
Yes and no. I understand that this is a very niche game that flew under the radar, yet I wish the game had a section concerning its critical reception. However, I understand that contemporary reviews are hard to come by if they exist at all. Thus, I am willing to believe that the editor most likely did not find any despite his or her best efforts.

As for the gameplay, a little bit more detail, f.e. about the power-ups, would not hurt, but as stated above, if availiable.

Apparently, the girl is named Papri, that could be included along with the name of the boy, if he has one. Also, does the game have a story/narrative, which could be found on the backcover/manual and included here? Again, if availiable.

However, I feel the legacy section could be expanded. The US gamer articles both have some interesting remarks about sexist concepts in the game's design (she does not rescue the boy but only fights for his affection, female dependency etc.) and I would very much argue for that to be included in the article. Also the word "inoffensive" from the review could be included.

4. Is it neutral?
Yes. Again, I would only replace the word cute in the head section.

5. Is it stable?
Yes. Absolutely nothing is going to change here.

6. Is it illustrated?
Yes, sufficiently.

Conclusion
As it stands, I see no reason why this article should not pass. It meets all criteria and seems to present all information availiable. Since all criteria are met and my issues with the article are small things that I can easily fix myself, I have made the decision to be bold and give the article a pass, while including the sexism points and removing the word cute. I will grant the article the new status after I have made the aforementioned improvements. If anybody feels a need to object, please feel free to do so.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for reviewing the article. Second, I'm not sure I agree with the sexism claims you added to the article. Please let me explain.
 * It seems the phrases you used to support these claims were:
 * Mackey:
 * and
 * Parish:
 * Seems to me that Mackey says that the game's underlying codependent relationship themes are questionable. I don't see how codependent relationships are related to sexism.
 * Parish gave his dismay that they put the female in a weak role rather than a strong heroic role like male protagonists. So yea he's hinting more closely to sexism here, but he comes short. Note that he also calls the game "inoffensive".
 * I feel we're not giving a fair WP:NPOV by saying the critics thought the game had sexist undertones. I reworded the article. Let me know your thoughts. TarkusAB talk 01:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, your rewording sounds fine to me, I just found it important to mention its retrospective reassessment, as 2 out the 3 sources you used here make a point of stressing these aspects.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)