Talk:ToeJam & Earl III: Mission to Earth/GA1

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of 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:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Lead
 * Missing some key details here, like release regions and exact release date. Also, there’s some confusion about the genre: the text says it’s an action game, the infobox says platformer.  The text should also include the names of the developers and publisher.
 * IGN says 22 Oct, GameSpot says 23. This suggests it was released in UK/Europe on 7 March 2003 (CVG and the Guardian reviewed it around Feb-Mar 2003) but this isn't made explicit. bridies (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ”Primary” may be a better word than ultimate” here.
 * I mean as in the last boss. bridies (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ”Other reviewers derided the graphics and attempted humor as poor…” – Redundant, derision indicates that the reviewers thought it was poor. Also, “attempted” is probably incorrect, as there is humor in the game (even though it seems it was bad).
 * Changed. bridies (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gameplay
 * This game is recent enough to warrant having separate sections for Gameplay and Plot. The plot section needs to explain in detail about the protagonists, especially ToeJam & Earl.  Latisha needs to be explained, as does the Funkapotamus and the Anti-Funk.  The game probably has enough of a storyline to warrant a plot summary, even if it’s short.  There's no information about the game's setting except that it's on Earth.  Where on Earth?
 * There’s little information about how the game is actually played. This is where we need more info on whether the game is an action game or platformer of mix of both.  How do the heroes battle enemies?  Can the player decide which of the three aliens is controlled at any given time?  What do the other two do when one is being controlled?  Do the protagonists have weapons or special powers, or qualities that differ between them?  Funk-Fu and Funk Notes are mentioned, but how do they work?  What do the power-ups do?  What’s the multiplayer about?  The box says it’s Xbox Live compatible, should that be explained?
 * The image here is great, but the caption should add a little more detail. What's the Earthling in the screen with ToeJam?  Is the game in two-player mode?  What's the number (-35) mean where ToeJam's head should be on the HUD?
 * Development
 * ” GT Interactive's restructuring and the Nintendo 64's declining commercial performance were also felt to be factors by commentators.” – This sentence is interesting but vague, could it be expanded?
 * Reception
 * This section needs expansion. It’s a relatively recent game, many more reviews can be found.  Despite the game’s focus on music as a plot device, for example, there is really only one sentence here about audio.
 * In order to make the text of the reviews less technical and more focused on prose, there should be an infobox with scores in it.

This article has been placed on hold. Is 11 sources enough to make a game this recent comprehensive? I have to believe there’s a lot more info out there. Expanding the gameplay and reception sections and creating a plot section will uncover a lot more information. The article will be on hold for a week or until all issues have been addressed. Good luck! Vantine84 (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article has been failed because of lack of progress on the items identified above. Vantine84 (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Clean up
Stuff fixed from the above review:


 * The article now has both the North American and European release dates. Despite the two reviews from Australian publications, there does not appear to have been a release in Australia, nor Japan. See this discussion.
 * The infobox now lists all the genres mentioned in the reviews.
 * Developers and publishers mentioned in the lead.
 * All the plot, such as there is, is discussed in the synopsis section barring the ending (which would be desirable but not essential for GA). Some commentary on Latisha by third party publications has been added, but there is not really substantive coverage on either the plot or characters in third party criticism.
 * "Where on Earth?" has been clarified in the prose.
 * Gameplay information has been expanded.
 * The caption is fine (see review above). The game is clearly in 2-player mode; commenting upon the name of the Earthling would be pushing WP:V; numbers on the HUD is extraneous in-game detail.
 * The "vague" sentence in the development section (see review above) cannot be expanded upon because that's all the sources say.
 * Reception section has been expanded. Scores moved from prose to an infobox. bridies (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)