Talk:ToeJam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron/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:
 * Pass or Fail:

Prose/Style/Layout


 * Lead


 * Is the inline citation necessary?


 * "Third instalment" could be wikilinked to the third game.
 * Done. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The infobox could include a series field, even if it's not wikilinked (there probably should be a series article, though).
 * Done. I left it black rather than redlinked. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "The game's platform format was a sharp departure..." - Tone consideration; "sharp" here makes it sound like an exclamation.
 * Done. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Sell-out" could also be a tone consideration. Is there a more formal way to express it?  Obviously it's fine in the quotes further down, but in the prose itself it may need to be reworded.
 * I put it in quotation marks as "selling out". bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Research however has suggested that a significant minority..." - "However" probably isn't necessary here.
 * Done. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Overview


 * Is "bogymen" misspelled here, or in the source? If it's the latter, make sure there's a [sic].
 * Done. It's spelt that way in the source. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Development


 * Like the other GA review, you probably only need "understand" or "get", not both.
 * Done. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Make sure that all throughout the article, inlines follow punctuation marks.
 * Fine, I think. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reception and legacy


 * It may be difficult to find reviews for the Genesis release because it's so old, but surely there are enough reviews for the Virtual Console release to justify a reviews infobox. Video game multiple console reviews might work; either way make sure the Virtual Console reviews are properly identified so readers aren't confused.  An infobox will let you get rid of sentences like "IGN gave the game a "solid" seven out of ten," for instance.


 * Is "cancelled" American English? It seems as though the rest of the article is in British English.  Either way is fine, just make sure it's consistent.
 * Oops, it should have one l. Normally I use British English but I thought US English was more appropriate here since it's a US developer/publisher. Think that's it... there's some UK English verbatim from EuroGamer. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "It's" should be "Its" in this case.
 * Oops. I think someone else fixed it. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Only deigned" sounds a little non-neutral; it may sound better as simply "decided".
 * Changed. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Miscellaneous


 * Publishers should be wikilinked in the references.
 * Fixed. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless it's a magazine or newspaper, publisher's shouldn't be italicized.
 * Fixed. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness
 * Where was the game released? Make sure the regions are listed in the infobox.
 * The Overview section, despite mentioning the first game, doesn't explain who ToeJam & Earl are and why they've crash-landed on Earth.
 * It also doesn't explain that the game is a platformer. Can the characters jump?  How do they avoid the Earthlings? etc.
 * The Development section is kind of small and only cites two sources. Isn't there any more information out there?  There are some comments from the developer in the Reception and legacy section, for instance—maybe they would serve better in Development.
 * Development also doesn't mention the game's urban/hip-hop influence.

Stability
 * The article doesn't mention much about the Virtual Console rerelease. Is it identical to the original?  Does it use the Wiimote?  Did the developers mention anything about it?


 * I disagree that IGN is an online magazine. It's a website and probably shouldn't be italicized.

This article is on hold until these issues can be addressed. In all honesty, it's a little further away from GA than the other ToeJam & Earl article, but I think it's doable. The article will be on hold for one week or until all issues are addressed. As you fix something, put "Done" underneath it. Good work! —   Levi van Tine  ( t  –  c )   11:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This review will continue to be on hold until sometime on May 12, 2009 or whenever all of the issues have been fixed. —   Levi van Tine  ( t  –  c )   12:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article has exceeded the time allotted to it for modifications and is being failed. If the issues can be resolved in the future, please nominate the article again. —    Levi van Tine  ( t  –  c )   00:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Future reference:
 * Removed citations in the lead.
 * Added a review infobox for the Wii rerelease and removed the scores from the prose.
 * Release dates are listed in the infobox.
 * Clarified who the protagonists are, mentioned "urban" influence etc (in overview rather than development section).
 * Clarified that the game is a platformer. Besides mentioning that it is so, reviewers seem to see it as kind of incidental...
 * I cited another source in the development section and added a bit more info on the first game for context, but apart from that the available info is pretty much covered.
 * The article gives as much space to the rerelease's reception as it does the original release and any more would bias the article IMO, firstly as it was a much bigger deal at the time of its original release rather than its rerelease as a retro game and secondly because it has been much maligned by commentators since its original, well-received release.
 * Removed mention of IGN as an "online magazine", I think. bridies (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)