Talk:PlayStation Portable/GA2

GA Review
-I'll work on the article more and resubmit it for FAC review instead. So please archive this review. JC7V (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 15:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the ✅ tag to state when something is addressed.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

 * It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - This article was demoted in 2009. However, it looks like it's been fully re-written, so no complaints from me.  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It contains copyright infringements - CopyVio check doesn't fill me with confidence. Will have to ask someone more familiar with these to check if they are copywriting from Wikipedia, WP:MIRROR, or if this is somesort of Copyleft  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confident that none of the pages flagged up by the Earwig tool are actual copyright violations. The ones with high confidence all show strong signs of being copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way round, e.g. for the similar page  is obviously copying Wii, for  the content was in the article some time before the date of the blog post. The ones with lower confidence are reasonable attributed quotations or false positives.  Hut 8.5  21:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, I didn't want to go ahead if there was an issue, and I'm not prepared to promote any article that does have copyright infringmenets. I'll continue the review!  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include,, or large numbers of , , or similar tags. (See also ). - There are no current tags for this purpose.   Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - No insight of edit warring.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Links

 * These dablinks need fixing. No need to link back to itself!  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 15:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've fixed all of the links which redirected back to Playstation Portable. You can check the article itself for proof  JC7V (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Referencing style is all over the place. Would like this to be uniform. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you give me specific examples, this is too vague?? I've already made about 3 or 4 references uniformed with the others and am still doing so. JC7V (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've went ahead and made all of the references uniform as you requested. JC7V (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * CheckLinks brings back a couple dead references. These need to be tagged as such.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I"ve fixed the dead links JC7V (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

 * Are there no abbreviations using vgrelease for Africa and Asia?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is retail availability important if release and discontinued dates both exist? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Units sold	Worldwide: 82 million, rounded-up (as of November 2013) - Wording - I'd have Units Sold: Worldwide ~ 82 million (as of Nov 2013).  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a potential WP:SYNTH issue with the "best-selling game"; in that the source doesn't say that it is the highest selling game, just what the amount is (was).  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Was the PocketStation really a predeccessor?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Lede

 * "developed by the Sony Computer Entertainment" - Surely "the" is not neccesary?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * you don't need sources in the lede. It's a big put off for me. Everything written in the lede should be written and sourced elsewhere in the article.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "The original PSP model (PSP-1000) was replaced by a slimmer model with design changes (PSP-2000/"Slim and Lite") in 2007.[20] Another remodeling followed in 2008, PSP-3000, which included a new screen and an inbuilt microphone. A complete redesign, PSP Go, came in 2009, followed by a budget model, PSP-E1000, in 2011. " - this whole paragraph isn't really for a lede. Simply stating that there were several different models is what should be in the lede, and the different models in depth later in the article.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As of 2017, this is the primary method to purchase PlayStation Portable games digitally because Sony shut down direct access to the PlayStation Store via PSP on March 31, 2016. - You wouldn't need to put "as of 2017", as it would still be true in 2016.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You mention the sales of the console (Which is great), but not how this reacts to it's competitor the Nintendo DS. Information on the release; reception and sales are the main things for a sales product GA IMO.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've compared the sales of the Playstation Portable to the Nintendo DS in the sales section, then in the reception section I explained why the Nintendo DS sold better than the Playstation Portable. Plus I briefly compared some technical elements of the two handhelds in the technical specification section which I wrote in prose. JC7V (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

History
Very well written section. I have no issues.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Technical Specifications
I think this is where my biggest issue is. Most GAs would have some sort of prose regarding the differences in specifications against it's competitors, and each version. Looking at PlayStation 4 which is a GA, this even has a seperate split topic on the subject, but everything is written in prose: see PlayStation 4 technical specifications. Even thoigh Nintendo 3DS isn't a GA, this has a great version of this section. Other GA articles such as Dreamcast also have a prose version of this.

I'm not sure I would support a promotion with this as a simple list; for it failing being well written.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've fixed every issue you raised including the prose issue. So please give me some feedback on the changes that I made. If my changes to anything weren't good enough, please tell me exactly what to fix and me and maybe someone else can fix these issues (I tried to turn the technical specifications into prose the best I could but I don't know anything about technical specifications so if it's not good enough, I may have to enlist help from another member of WikiProject Video Games to help me). JC7V (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've fixed every issue that you cited. I've also put the whole technical specification section into prose form. If that or any other change I've made isn't good enough, tell me and I'll continue to fix the issues. Thank you. JC7V (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been away all weekend. I've taken a look at the technical specification, and it's certainly better. However, it does need a good copy edit. I'll move onto other parts of the article and take a look at this last.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Models
I don't really have a problem with this. A table does seem like the most suitible way to describe this information in this instance.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Variations
I don't think serial codes are notable at all. Noting that the games are non-region specific, is important, and that the consoles only work with the correct versions is fine, but I'm not sure the table is needed.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't include pricing on Wikipedia, unless it's considered by reliable sources to be excessive, or a bargain. Remove.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * same for the retail configurations table. I can't see how the release date is all that notable for it's own section, and clearly the prices are against policy.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Redesigns

 * The PSP Go (stylized PSPgo or PSP go, model PSP-N1000)[85][86][87][88][89][90] - See WP:REFBOMB. Try to remove non-vital references; or combine into one reference.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Although its design is significantly different from other PSPs, it was not intended to replace the PSP 3000, which Sony continued to manufacture, sell, and support" - This sentence doesn't make much sense to me. Why would it replace an older version if it was significantly different.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, remove exact pricing from this section. Saying a "cheaper" or "budget" version, is fine, but not exact figures.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The first sentence for TV output and accessory port needs sourcing.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is Lenkeng notable? If so, the red link is fine, but I doubt it is.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Releases and Limited Edition models needs sourcing as well. There's also randomly Me My Katamari after the first paragraph.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The "hardware issues" section shouldn't be here. It could potentially be it's own section. Any quotes (even in a quotes box) need speech marks.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Sales

 * As per WP:VG sales should be a subsection (or a section after) the reception.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * section is fine. I do have an issue with the last sentence. The time frame should be explicit, saying that over the entire lifespan of both consoles, the PSP was outsold. As per your argument earlier, this should also be mentioned in the lede.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hardware/Software

 * The PSP browser is slower compared to modern browsers and often runs out of memory due to limitations put in place by Sony. - should really have a reference. Seems derogitory without one.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * same with "The PSP is equipped with a two-pin docking connector immediately below the AC adaptor jack for easy drop-in charging using a docking station that was to be sold separately for the PSP-1000 series. However no such charging dock was ever released by Sony. The two-pin docking station charging contacts were removed from the PSP-2000 and later versions."  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "As of October 31, 2012 the Digital Comics App is no longer available for download.

As of December 31, 2012 the Digital Comics Server has been taken offline and earlier bought comics can no longer be re-downloaded." - make into one paragraph/sentence, and source.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Games

 * Wikilink emulation - It might be a normal word for gamers, but not everyday life.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd also move the whole emulation section into this one. It doesn't need it's own.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Hi, can I have an extension on the hold for the Playstation Portable GAR since my copy edit requestt at the Guild for Copy Editors may take longer than a week (but not too much longer). If not, can i renominate the article after the copy edit is done and you'll review it again?? JC7V (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I was going to leave this on hold until after the copy edit.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * One thing that struck me while copyediting this article is that the Games section doesn't actually name any games. I would expect to see at least two or three games significant to the console; Liberty City Stories is listed as the biggest seller in the infobox. Kim Post (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've added the top 5 selling PSP games to the game section in prose and I've added the final PSP game ever released to that section as well. Thanks for pointing this out. JC7V (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for your work on the PSP article. JC7V (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Reception
A nice reception section is a definate for a GA. This one is good. I'd mention the sales section should be included here, and the final two sentences should be included in such a section.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a few weird grammitical errors in this article, and a few in the reception section, which doesn't flow. I'll mention it in depth a bit later.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Controversial advertising campaigns

 * This section feels a bit weird, when everything else is written in prose, and this is bullets. At the very least, there should be an opening paragraph that states that there were some advertsting campaigns, and whether this is normal for a console release.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Notes & References

 * I've run a few scripts to fix a few of the issues I was referring to regarding the referencing style. Hope that helps!  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Apart from the above where I've asked for referencing, the references themselves are good  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Overall impressions
Thank you for working on the technical specifications. That would have been pretty much a complete halt to me passing this as a GA. There are quite a few outstanding issues above, and the article needs a serious copy edit (I'd actually request one at WP:GOCE, before I finish this (That's good practice in general before nominating a GA.)

The issues are missing punctuation - sometimes sentences miss off full stops, or commas; or the wording is really poor. A quick copyeditor would be able to sort this out, but it can take a couple days for someone to look at it. I'm happy to put the remaining review on hold until a copy edit has occurred.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Hi, thanks for the feedback. I corrected all of the issues above and I just put a request in at the Guild of Copy Editors for a copy edit of the article. JC7V (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , The copyedit work for the article has been complete by a member of the CEG,. JC7V (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - Ok, I'll take a second look today  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Second view thoughts

 * "The PlayStation Portable was the most powerful portable system when launched" - This should really say "games console". I'm certain it's not the most powerful portable technology.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The PlayStation Portable was the most powerful portable system when launched, just after the Nintendo DS. - The whole sentence doesn't work. This suggests it was the most powerful... But that the DS was more powerful. I think this should say that it was released after the DS, but the sentence only infers this.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * ". Its high-end graphics, 4.3-inch (110 mm) viewing screen, and multi-media capabilities made the PlayStation Portable a major mobile entertainment device." - Probably shouldn't mention the exact size of the screen in the lede. Saying it had a large high-end screen is plenty.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The lede needs information about it's reception for any GA, IMO  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I still can't see a reason for the region codes table.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the section should be "designs", rather than "redesigns".  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have a real issue with the blockquote in PSP-3000. It doesn't have any attribution to who said this. Needs more information.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The whole Games section needs looking at. I'd start with a summary of the games (How many there are), then going into information on the biggest sellers/cult games, etc, before any information on demos.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Move the sales table to the left  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Ok, I've fixed all of these issues to the tee. JC7V (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I did a quick edit of a few minor things, and irrelevent section breaks. The games section is by far the biggest issue in this article, as it's super disconnected and not well written.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'll enlist some help to rewrite it. Give me some more days. I will enlist some 'good article writers' to rewrite it. JC7V (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I am getting other editors to fix that game section since I am a mere mortal. boo JC7V (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (Pinged here by JC7V) I do agree that some of the games section is disconnected. I see 10 paragraphs, many of which are short: epicgenius (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Demos
 * Older games that can be played on PSP
 * "Minis" - 1 sentence
 * Greatest Hits
 * Downloadable games - 1 sentence
 * Emulation
 * Demos again - 1 sentence
 * Launch games
 * Best-selling games
 * Best-rated games
 * I think this should be split up with one subsection, about the list of games (last 3 paragraphs, plus Greatest Hits). Also consider merging the two demo's paragraphs, and the emulation and "older games" paragraphs. The only one-sentence paragraph will be downloadable games, and I'll leave it to you to decide where to put it. Anyway, just some thoughts. epicgenius (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the feedback, I've taken your advice and fixed the structure and layout of that section. JC7V (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Ok, I've taken the feedback from epicgenius and I've restructured the Games section to be better. Is it good or if not what exactly should i fix about it? JC7V (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

 * 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: