Talk:Gun Beat/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nomader (talk · contribs) 17:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll be doing this review.  Nomader  ( talk ) 17:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The "core" segment bit is a little confusing. It feels to me like the first player to start a game gets to be the "core" segment? Or is that a certain enemy? Should be clarified.
 * I rewrote this part. That's not what it means so hopefully I clarified.
 * Much, much better, thanks!
 * What does "game over" mean in this context? Do I have to keep putting more money in to keep playing, or does the game just end automatically? I imagine it isn't stated in sources here, but if it does, saying what happens if one person dies and the other survives is interesting for gameplay as well (but as it's a canceled game and we're citing a flyer here, no big if it doesn't exist).
 * The term they use in the interview is "retire". So the player retires from the race if they run out of time. In the context of racing games, retiring means you lost the race, so I interpreted that as game over. They did not specify if you could potentially put in more money or expand on it whatsoever.
 * Got it, then I'm fine with it.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Magical shot and beat gun should be cited.
 * Done
 * Magical turbo gauge should be shot-- also, is there a source that says it's a "magical" turbo gauge? Seems to be used quite a bit in those few sentences. I can't read Japanese so I'll AGF with whichever direction you go on this one.
 * What do you mean by "Magical turbo gauge should be shot"? And the gauge certainly is for "Magical Turbo", Don't need to read Japanese for this one! ;) https://retrocdn.net/images/b/b6/DCM_JP_19990305_1999-08.pdf page 97
 * I think that I may have been a litttle tired when I wrote that sentence. And wow, you were right, it's the one part of the whole magazine that I didn't! I have no idea what I meant after re-reading that sentence, so we're just gonna go ahead and give you this one. :)
 * Checkpoints bit should be cited.
 * 'The idea for the game came...." this sentence should be cited.
 * Done
 * Wacky Races note should be cited.
 * Make it unlike previous Treasure games-- why? This should be cited. (Fine with not citing the previous sentence if this one is)
 * Citation added. Reasoning is not stated in interview. Since they don't expand on what they aim to do differently in any sense, I can remove if you think that's better.
 * I think it's fine as is, but felt if the source was there to explain it, to go ahead and do so. Definitely keep it in.
 * Should be cited for the punching and kicking note. Any notes on why they moved from that to shooting instead in particular that could flesh it out?
 * Hanzawa music should be cited.
 * added
 * Ohashi sentence should be cited.
 * added
 * Frame rate sentence should be cited.
 * added
 * Carmine sentence should be cited.
 * Shameless sentence should be cited (really interesting tidbit if true there).
 * The comparison sentence to Bomberman from IGN should be cited.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I would generally be hesitant about using such an extensive video clip, especially considering that there's already a screenshot in the article. It would seem to maybe fall afoul of WP:NFCC, but because of the historical nature of the clip (which emphasizes that it really was the only gameplay footage ever recorded) I think it should be fine. Make sure to expand on WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC in the video description.
 * I expanded on NFCC8 and 2. I was hesitant to upload too, but it is truly the only footage out there of the game. And it's a short video, low resolution, no commercial opportunity infringement since it was canceled, etc...so hopefully it's OK.
 * I think it's fine, and for the purposes of this review, I'm good with it. You've addressed my concerns with the rationale.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I would generally be hesitant about using such an extensive video clip, especially considering that there's already a screenshot in the article. It would seem to maybe fall afoul of WP:NFCC, but because of the historical nature of the clip (which emphasizes that it really was the only gameplay footage ever recorded) I think it should be fine. Make sure to expand on WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC in the video description.
 * I expanded on NFCC8 and 2. I was hesitant to upload too, but it is truly the only footage out there of the game. And it's a short video, low resolution, no commercial opportunity infringement since it was canceled, etc...so hopefully it's OK.
 * I think it's fine, and for the purposes of this review, I'm good with it. You've addressed my concerns with the rationale.


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Most of these sources probably already exist, but I think it's important that any statements that could be theoretically challenged should have an in-line reference (specifically the ones I listed above). Really interesting article and great work on this! Put on hold pending the changes I've listed above being addressed.  Nomader  ( talk ) 17:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * All the text in this article is supported by the closest following footnote. Per WP:CITEFOOT, citations are sufficient at the end of the information it supports, but not necessarily required at the end of each sentence. Are there particular phrases that should have a duplicate footnote at the end to make the support more clear, or should each sentence have a footnote regardless? I personally prefer not having every sentence footnoted if it isn't necessary, as it causes clutter. TarkusAB talk 02:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely understand where you're coming from here. I went through and struck about half of the requested citations (I wasn't clear that some of them were from later sources, but on a re-read it seems obvious to me). Unfortunately, I think the rest that haven't been struck should be still have an in-line citation. For example, after the magical shot sentence, there isn't a citation for another five sentences-- there's nothing to indicate that it's from the same source. Per WP:CITEFOOT, it needs to be clear that which source supports which part of the text, and those sentences would be helped with the clarification. Let me know if you have any concerns about the ones that are left currently too and sorry to drop this on you!  Nomader  ( talk ) 04:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK responded to all comments. TarkusAB talk 03:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much-- really great work all around. I'm good with all of these edits, and after doing one more once over, I'm passing the article. Terrific work!  Nomader  ( talk ) 03:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)