Talk:Spark the Electric Jester/GA1

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

Reviewer: IceWelder (talk · contribs) 15:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Will review in the coming days. IceWelder &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Infobox
 * Per template guidelines, a series should only be listed in the infobox if it has an article. This is not the case here, so it should be removed.
 * ✅ Ludoyo (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are currently six composers listed. The limit for the credits fields is usually three. Did any of them have a lead role?
 * Not particularly. According to the soundtrack's Bandcamp page Tunstall, Falk, and Funk Fiction composed five songs, Staple and Bethers composed four, and Landino composed three. I've ordered them by contribution if that would suffice. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Is the pseudonym relevant enough for the lead?
 * I was following the precedent set in the Sonic: After the Sequel article, as the developer is primarily known by that username in the Sonic community. That information is probably irrelevant to people outside of that space, so I've removed it. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Daneluz was previously known for creating a variety of ..." -> "Daneluz previously created ..."
 * ✅ Ludoyo (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "based off" -> "based on"
 * ✅ Ludoyo (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "which was to be his first commercial title" -> "his first commercial title"
 * ✅ Ludoyo (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Outside of music composition, he developed the game alone using Clickteam software." - This is a bit ambiguous; on my first read, it sounded as though he did the music, just not with Fusion. Consider rephrasing.
 * Also, is 'alone' correct here? What about Héctor Barreiro-Cabrera, who is credited for "base programming"? The body also states there to be a sound designer/concept artist.
 * You're right. Rephrased the sentence to "Aside from its sound and programming, he developed the game mostly alone" since it still seems like he did most of the work to me. Added information on Héctor Barreiro-Cabrera's involvement in the body as well. Is that fine? LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Journalists" -> "Critics" or "Reviewers", as not all reviewers are necessarily journalists.
 * Done. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Gameplay
 * Throughout this section are many elements sourced using the game itself. The project permits this only for plot sections (where the refs are hence omitted) and credit listings. In the gameplay section, this would mean that an editor played the game and wrote down their own interpretations, i.e. original research. Such references should be replaced with reliable secondary sources or removed alongside their contents.
 * Done. I'm assuming transcripts are fine. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "2D side-scrolling platformer" - Please rephrase or relink per MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
 * Done. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "16-bit era" is a compound adjective in this sentence, so it should be "16-bit-era".
 * Done. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "eponymous" means "of the same name" but the character is only referred to as Spark in this article. Use "titular" or omit it entirely.
 * Replaced with "titular". LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "... each typically containing an assortment of ..." - and untypically?
 * One of the levels, Luna Base, does not contain any enemies or power-ups. Can't cite that to anything other than the game itself so I've removed the phrasing. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "dispatched" meaning "killed" is informal and slightly ambiguous in this context.
 * Replaced "dispatched" with "fought". LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Hard modes are also available ..." - Remove unnecessary 'also'.
 * Done. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Plot
 * Is the color of the character relevant to mention?
 * Probably not. Removed. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Does the Plot section cover the original plot or the rewrite from 16 months after the original release?
 * The rewrite. I've sourced the section using the updated version of the game to avoid any confusion. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Development
 * Suggested imaged caption simplification: "The character Beam Sonic from Daneluz's Sonic: After the Sequel was the basis for Spark's design."
 * Done. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The character is visible but very small in this screenshot. Would it be better to instead show his sprite singled out?
 * I'm not sure. I'd rather present the screenshot unmodified to represent the game accurately but I wouldn't mind the change necessarily. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For consistency's sake, always use the game's full name when discussing it to avoid confusion with the character. The italics are easy to miss for some readers and will be almost completely lost for people using screen readers.
 * Done. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Hailing from São Paulo, Brazil, Spark the Electric Jester ..." - This makes it appear as though Spark was from Brazil, which obviously is not the case. "To hail from" is also somewhat informal.
 * Done. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Modify "open-source game engine" per SEAOFBLUE.
 * Done. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "based off" -> "based on"
 * ✅ Ludoyo (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "would find" -> "found"
 * ✅ Ludoyo (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The previous game getting positive coverage is based on five sources that show individual persons' positive view. While I know that reception was positive, this could appear to some as cherry-picking. Unless there is a source that says -- verbatim -- that the game got positive reviews, the sentence should be removed. I also feel that the sentence as a whole is not too relevant for this article.
 * I included that sentence to establish the notability of those games to people who are unfamiliar with them. I revised it to say "The games were released between 2011 and 2013 and would go on to be downloaded over 120,000 times in total." This should also address another point of yours. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "for what was to be Spark" -> "for what became Spark"
 * ✅ Ludoyo (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Work on the game had begun by the time of Chrono Adventure's development." - Do we know when this was?
 * Unfortunately no. I rewrote one of the previous sentences to mention the years the fangames were released, which should give you a rough idea of when it did. Does that work? LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "July of 2015" -> "July 2015"
 * ✅ Ludoyo (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove erroneous spaces after "US$". Consider using US$, setting no from the second occurrence on.
 * Done. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "... and planned to allocate ..." -> "... and he planned to allocate ..."
 * ✅ Ludoyo (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Otherwise, the game was developed by Daneluz alone," - Same comment as in the lead section.
 * Addressed this. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Aside from Sonic, the Mega Man X titles and Kirby Super Star were its biggest influences alongside Bayonetta and the Super Smash Bros. series." - So were they all the biggest influences? Consider rephrasing.
 * Done. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Sequels
 * Consider merging the two short paragraphs into one.
 * ✅ Merged. Ludoyo (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Consider moving the Unity tidbit into the change in dimensions, as they appear related to me.
 * Done. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * References
 * Is Hey Poor Player a reliable source?
 * I was hesitant about including that one. It is the most critical of the reviews sourced but yeah, probably not. I've removed information in the gameplay section sourcing it (was just one sentence) and will do the same for reception soon. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ref #19: "(interview with LakeFeperd)" should not be part of the website name.
 * Done. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ref #36: Assuming Landino is the only author on his own website, add him as the author and put "jameslandino.com" as the via.
 * Done. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Other
 * The "Official website" appears just to be the developer's website. The link should be removed.
 * Done. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is categorized as "Video games set on the Moon", but the Moon is not mentioned anywhere in the article.
 * Removed. I added that because it's mentioned in the artbook, but yeah, you wouldn't have guessed that from the game itself. LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Above is my initial review. Feel free to strike through or reply to individual comments as you work on them. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm just passing by, but here are a couple of suggestions. As I haven't played the game at all, I can't comment on its gameplay or plot:


 * I don't know if Destructoid is a reliable ref, but IMHO we need better refs. It's used for four refs, but it's a blog like site. According to WikiProject Video games/Sources, [like] other blog sites, some content may be reliable, but only if the author can be established as such. Community user-blogs fail WP:USERG.. Is the author "established as such"? If not, IMHO rm of these are needed, especially the refs in reception, because that needs to meet criteria 2b.
 * I've removed two of those refs. As for the Destructoid review, the author's LinkedIn page says that he's written for "CGM, GameRevolution, Zam, Paste, Motherboard and others." GameRevolution, Paste, and Vice games (Motherboard is hosted on the same site) are listed as reliable sources, so it should be fine. The author of the July 2015 piece has also written for PC Gamer, PCGamesN, VG247, and Polygon, as well as a few other situational sources. The 2015 article isn't that vital to the article, being used as a source for one detail, but the author seems to be reliable. LBWP (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Same with Hey Poor Player, it's on Metacritic, but its reliability, per our VGRS page, is said to be inconclusive. Is there a better ref, or this fails criteria 2b?
 * Doesn't seem to be reliable so I'll try to remove it soon. It isn't that vital to the article anyway. LBWP (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree on that it's probably unreliable. VickKiang (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Is Gamespew an RS? Its about us or review page doesn't show editorial policies, IMHO. The staff number is very small, and I couldn't find the editor-in-chief being in any other RS (ping me if otherwise).
 * Yeah, I'm not sure about its reliability either. Hopefully some other editors can weigh in on this. Like Hey Poor Player, it wouldn't be hard to remove. LBWP (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, I'm interested how the original reviewer thought for this. VickKiang (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a recent discussion about it on the video games sources talk page. Judging from that discussion, as well as the small editorial team of the site, I think I'll go ahead and write them out of the article as well. LBWP (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Minor suggestion: I'm confused that the game received positive reviews. A) This is like OR, as no site (not even Metacritic say this), B) It seems to be a bit positive POV, as the reviews cited, such as Destructoid and Hey Poor Player, are iffy in if it's an RS.
 * I got that impression from the four reviews sourced and figured it would be an uncontroversial statement, so basically OR. Are brief critical reception summaries like that are inappropriate without a review aggregator source? I'm pretty sure the Destructoid review is reliable at least. LBWP (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've clarified that this suggestion is minor, but below is just my POV:
 * It might be an uncontroversial statement since the reviews are positive, but how many generally reliable reviews per WP:VGRS gave positive reviews? If there's only a few, IMHO the positive reviews seem to be a bit much, and borderline on if it fails 2c (since it isn't listed on Metacritic nor has won a major award), but I agree this is minor. VickKiang (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help with this article, and taking this work for GAN! VickKiang (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Optional: I know ref 18 is probably fine, as it's a SPS but it's talking about itself on uncontroversial details, but could there be a better secondary ref? Same with the YouTube interviews (this is a POV from me, of course). This isn't directly included in criteria 2b, so is IMO an optional suggestion.
 * The only other ref that goes into detail on the hard modes is GameSpew. LBWP (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've responded to your comments above.

Thanks for the review. I believe I've addressed most of your points. I'll need a little time to rewrite the reception section to omit Hey Poor Player (and possibly GameSpew if we can come to a consensus on that). LBWP (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Reception has been taken care of. I've completely removed the Hey Poor Player and GameSpew refs from the article. LBWP (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice work! I applied some minor fixes I felt were faster done than explained. Feel free to revert parts you disagree with. One last thing I take issue with is Note a, which states that the story of Fark has been retconned. Only a source for the current state is provided, which does not verify there having been a change. If no source mentioning the change exists, I would suggest you move the "alternate world" bit in-line and remove the note entirely. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 16:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. I removed the alternate world detail entirely since I figured it wouldn't be relevant to the gameplay section. One thing I noticed is that the archive link for the Spark 2 interview was changed. It seems like the Wayback Machine failed to archive the video itself though, probably because of its length. I changed the link back to my Internet Archive upload but if I'm mistaken, you can change it back. LBWP (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well done! . Don't forget to create a Did you know nomination. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 16:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)