Talk:Jumping Flash! 2/GA1

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

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 05:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll be offline and on the road over the next week. I'll review this then. czar ♔   05:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * esp. lede needs expanding with trest of article
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * some parts of Plot to be fixed
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold for a week, even though it's looking like the article will need more than a week. Posting this from the road, so I'll be freer to respond over next weekend
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold for a week, even though it's looking like the article will need more than a week. Posting this from the road, so I'll be freer to respond over next weekend
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold for a week, even though it's looking like the article will need more than a week. Posting this from the road, so I'll be freer to respond over next weekend


 * Infobox video game uses media only where the distribution is ambiguous, which it isn't in this case
 * First-person platformer is not a genre
 * Why isn't the developer first in the lede, as customary?
 * Plot is passable but the prose could really be cleaned up to be more neutral and less choppy ("Robbit emerges victorious, resulting in Kabuki fleeing.")
 * Is there more development available?
 * Where are the print sources for Reception?
 * As of right now, the Reception isn't broad enough. It basically lists the stuff we already see in the infobox (which I'd recommend cutting) and has little to no critical discussion of what they thought of the game.

czar ♔   23:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Make sure the contents of the infobox are sourced within the article (esp. release dates)
 * Lede is not sufficiently broad, has no coverage of development, uses too many character names as jargon and should be more overview-y, Reception should be paraphrased as general ideas not individual quotes
 * Gamefaqs is not a reliable source and should be removed. Ideally the plot should have a secondary source reference
 * mortal combat shouldn't be linked as such, because it's a surprise to end up at "boss battle"
 * might be worth replacing box art fair use rationale with the template
 * Images need to be reduced in size (length times width less than 100,000 pixels)
 * which one in the background is Kabuki?
 * gameplay screenshot can be explained better, otherwise the other caption is good, though I'm not sure the image of Aloha is providing a vital function in the article or meeting the FUR criteria

Thanks for the review. I've addressed the infobox and I know that platformer is not a genre but I followed the lead's style of the first game, Jumping Flash! which uses the nearly the same wording (but I've changed it anyway). I'm addressing the rest now... ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 13:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I've addressed your concerns for this one. I have removed and replaced all unreliable sources and have copy edited the reception section so that it appears broader. I also copy edited the lead to remove jargon and contain development. As for the development section - I have squeezed out enough information as I could but like its predecessor, I am having trouble to find any information on its development as a game like this is relatively unknown. Anyway please let me know what you think. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I took a look at your edits and I'm still seeing a bunch of things unresolved, such as breadth of Reception (none of the period's print magazine sources were cited), excessive plot that goes into way too much detail, "first person platformer" unresolved. As mentioned in another Wipeout GAN (they all blur together now), I think you should poll WT:VG for ideas on sourcing the Dev section if you're not finding anything for the entire series. If no one has any ideas, I think the small section could be excused, but if you don't ask, you don't get. Also reading over the Gameplay, I still don't have a very clear picture of how it's played. What kinds of platforms? What is the player-character trying to do? All in all, I don't think it's near GA quality just yet, but I'll leave it open a bit longer in case you want to talk about it. czar ♔   20:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing, as discussed czar ♔   16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)