Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jumping Flash!/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC).

Jumping Flash!

 * Nominator(s): ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 18:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's everyone's(?) favourite childhood game, Jumping Flash!. Definitely one of the most underestimated and forgotten games of all time, upon release it showcased one of the first fully 3D environments any game offered and also ensured the PlayStation's emergence into the market. This was also a failed attempt to create Sony a mascot (like Sonic or Mario) and were it not for the overshadow of other games at the time, this would be a different story.

I almost wrote a review there. Please bear in mind that this game has no logic at all - it has missile shooting pigs, talking cheeseburgers and planets with telephone boxes on them. Not to mention a robot rabbit. All things considered, it is best played whilst high. It was also very difficult to find any proper information on the internet regarding the development and release of the game, as there appears to be a large black hole in 1995 Japanese video games. I have worked hard over the months, and am nominating this for FA as I want to ensure this game gets its well-deserved honour. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 18:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not going to oppose because I'm no expert on this game, but even briefly examining the article I see a number of issues. There are quite a few dead links to be archived or replaced. Moreover, the citations are sloppily compiled. In citation 15, Gamespy is misspelled GameS[u and IGN is listed as the publisher. Citations 9 and 14 are the same, as are citations 22 and 28. While it's quite normal to use scans from the Internet, linking directly to copyvio sites like ImageBam is frowned upon. Spot checks were not encouraging:


 * "Upon release, Jumping Flash! received very positive reviews from magazines and critics alike.[27] Critics mainly praised its unique innovation, advanced graphics for the time, gameplay and clean textures.[27]" The source is a 2007 retrospective that says nothing about critical consensus at the time.
 * "Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) initially believed that Jumping Flash would be remembered as the first appearance of a new "platform star" with the same longevity as Sonic the Hedgehog or Mario." This is not in the cited GameFan source at all, but is taken directly from the Edge preview.
 * "Albert Kim of Entertainment Weekly stated that Jumping Flash! was perhaps the most euphoric sensation of videogaming at the time" is a blatant misrepresentation. According to the source, "The first-rabbit perspective makes for a neatly hypnotic effect: With each jump, your sense of free-falling glee increases. Perhaps the most euphoric sensation comes at the height of a turbocharged jump, when you can look below and see the world quietly slip away."
 * Personally, I would separate contemporary reviews from retrospective coverage. Despite the seemingly unanimous collection of superlatives that comprises much of this article's "Reception" section, a few minutes of searching reveals that not all modern critics are impressed with how well Jumping Flash! holds up (for example, 6/10 from Eurogamer, 5.5/10 from Now Gamer, and 4.5/10 from IGN--although there are positive reviews such as Joystiq ' s 7.5/10 or PocketGamer ' s 7/10, and USGamer believes the game is at least still "playable", unlike even more primitive early 3D platformers such as Bug! for the Sega Saturn). Has this article really been researched thoroughly enough to make the jump from GA to FA?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will address your comments shortly (I think some of them have already been addressed down below, though)! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 21:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: A quick read through the article highlights issues, some of which I've detailed below:

1a:

Lead:


 * "the changing game generation" - what does this mean?
 * Means the transition between the fourth and fifth generation of consoles, but reworded. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 19:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "despite its overshadow" doesn't read right - wouldn't overshadow normally be something that's done rather than something that's possessed?
 * I'm afraid I don't understand, I think the phrase "despite its overshadow" of the game reads fine? ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 19:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Something like "despite being overshadowed" or even "despite its overshadowing" seem to fit more naturally to me. Google suggests that this article is the only thing on the whole internet that uses the phrase "despite its overshadow" . Techtri (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, reworded again. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 17:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "did spawn a few sequels such as" - 'such as' suggests we're listing some examples from a wider series, needs rewording if these are the only two sequels.
 * Reworded. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 19:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Slightly better, but "including" still suggests that it's only listing part of a fuller set. Were there only two sequels, or were there more titles/spinoffs? Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep two sequels and two spinoffs, reworded. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 17:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Under Gameplay:


 * "The enemies are often of animal-like creatures" - 'of' is redundant. Also wouldn't the examples given (kiwis and penguins) actually be animals, as opposed to animal-like creatures?
 * Reworded, I know they are both birds, but these were just examples. In the game all the animal-like enemies are either anthropomorphic or robotic, so clarified. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 19:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "After collecting them, landing on the "EXIT Pad" is all that remains in finishing the level." - dislike the use of "all that remains".
 * Reworded. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Under Development and Release:


 * The first paragraph appears chronologically backwards, as it firstly covers the previews of the game and then goes onto explain the intial formation of the partnership and how they were tasked with coming up with a preview. It would read better if covered in order. Also the fact it was a "technology demonstration for the then-upcoming PlayStation console" is mentioned twice in this same paragraph.
 * I have re-structured the development section, moving some parts around to that they appear more chronological. Let me know what you think? ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Ultra (formerly known as MuuMuu Co., Ltd.)"..."Japanese studio MuuMuu Co. Ltd (later renamed Ultra Co., Ltd)" I understand it needs covering as the characters took their name from the old company name, but it needs rewording for clarity, as at the moment it reads in a way that the company is effectively introduced several times, giving the impression of different companies. Possibly remove the mention of their previous name from the second para and reword how it appears in the third.
 * Removed instance in the second paragraph and elaborated in the third. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Jumping Flash! was among one of the first games of the platforming genre" - 'among one' doesn't sound right to me, I'd prefer either "was among the first games" or "was one of the first games".
 * You're right; reworded to "was among the first games". ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "inspires the name of the MuuMuu creatures that features in all three games" - what three games are we referring to here? This one, and the two mentioned most recently in the article (DKC and Yoshi's Island?)
 * Oh no, the only three main games in the series. Reworded. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The sentence "Many of the tracks were included with tracks from Jumping Flash! 2" took a few reads for me to understand what it was saying, possibly because it isn't explained that it's referring to an OST until after a (brackets) break in the sentence.
 * It did appear confusing, so I've reworded this sentence to make it clearer. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Under Reception and legacy:


 * "received very positive reviews from magazines and critics alike" - wouldn't it be critics writing the magazine reviews?
 * Cut down to just critics. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "praised its unique innovation, advanced graphics for the time"..."The graphics were also critically acclaimed" - Duplication here with the praise of the graphics.
 * Reworded. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "The graphics were also critically acclaimed by critics" - crit-overload here!
 * Re-structured. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "GameRevolution staff"..."IGN Staff" - staff or Staff? In fact, is the word staff even needed at all - would this read better as "GameRevolution also criticised..."
 * The reason why it reads as "IGN Staff" is because that is the placeholder name that is given in the actual reviews, it appears that whoever reviewed it back in 1996 didn't give their name as an author. 'Staff' is only capitalised because that is what it says on the review page, I can change it to lowercase if you want? ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to mention staff at all, it doesn't add anything to my understanding compared to just referring to the publication. Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed IGN staff from prose. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 17:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "despite its initial overshadow from newer platformers" - I don't understand what this is saying - what's an initial overshadow?
 * Referring to when it was first overshadowed by other games, seeing as this didn't gain a cult following I've removed 'initial'. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As with the lead, I still don't think overshadow sounds right when used this way. Wouldn't it be "overshadowed by" newer platformers? Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Addressed. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 17:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "also praised Jumping Flash! as having lasting memories" - wouldn't the person have lasting memories of the game, as opposed to the game having the memories?
 * I believe the sentence is correct, people have lasting memories of games they like, especially experienced in their childhood. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly - people have lasting memories. The wording of the article says that the game has lasting memories. Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, reworded. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 17:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The lasting memories part still doesn't read right. In any case, I checked it against the source and couldn't see anything mentioned about lasting memories in there. I'd suggest removing that bit altogether and leave only the direct quote, or picking another fact that's actually in the source (that he chose it as one of his top three favourite PSone games of all time for example). Techtri (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

1b:


 * The plot section covers the back story to the game (presumably the buildup from the manual), but doesn't cover the story of the game itself. What happens with the storyline as you progress through the game, is there some final showdown or an ending scene that could be covered?
 * I was afraid someone would ask this. I'm not sure on how to explain, this game has no logical story or narrative structure at all. It's sort of like how in Donkey Kong Country the game revolves around somebody stealing their bananas and their quest on travelling through the world to get them back. In this game, as one progresses through the level there are no further cutscenes or anything that suggests there is a story at all (there is, however, a structure in Jumping Flash! 2). I would consider the plot section the whole story and not a back story, so I'll reword some parts in the section to make it clearer. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing at all happens at the end of the game? No final boss fight on his home ground? The protagonist doesn't escape vowing to return in the sequel? Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, a boss fight and final cutscenes at the end, slightly reworded. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 17:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed you referenced that to the instruction manual - does the manual really tell you how the game ends? Techtri (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That citation can simply be redacted; it's more common for media articles (including FAs) to leave the plot unsourced than not. Tezero (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The gameplay sections mentions hidden bonus levels, but it didn't appear clear how these bonus levels were accessed? Just a quick mention if they're perhaps hidden in an existing level or accessed by collecting particular items would be nice.
 * Elaborated, I am happy to say that it looks much better this way. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

1c:


 * Sourcing-wise, a spot check shows that ref 12 cites the wrong page number and is missing an issue number. Most of the Edge citations and some of the Next Generation cites are missing publisher info. ISSNs would be nice if available.
 * My bad, fixed the page number and added the issue. Added all publishers, works and issues too. I'll try to find ISSNs as I go along but most are not available. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the ISSNs are not available - they'll be on the front cover as part of the barcode if you can't find them elsewhere. Techtri (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ref 8 was a Allgame deadlink, which I've added an archiveurl for, but it appears to be the page for the sequel. Is this correct, or should it be this link instead?
 * Don't worry this is correct, the gameplay for both games are exactly the same. If anyone disagrees with using this I can use the other link you provided me. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked that the other source backs up the material, but it's definitely an issue to cite a reference for a different game, no matter how similar they play. Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right - replaced. I think I got confused back there. ☠  Jag  uar  ☠ 17:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so the Allgame source is used to reference three points -
 * 1 - The enemies including some specific ones that have more intelligence than others (it briefly covers enemies, but I couldn't see anything specific about the more intelligent ones).
 * 2 - The 'collect 4 jetpods and proceed to the EXIT' game mechanism (which while it briefly mentions collecting jetpods, it doesn't mention proceeding to the EXIT platform)
 * 3 - The ability to play through the 18 levels again in a more difficult mode (which I couldn't see mentioned at all in the source). I don't know whether the second point needs a source (it would of course be nice to have one), but the first and third points definitely do, and none should be referenced to a source that doesn't cover the material discussed. Techtri (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 41 links to a (dead) Fortunecity website, which I'm not sure would be classed as reliable even if an archivelink was available.
 * Removed. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Is Ref 1 and 4 a different instruction manual from Ref 3? If so, is there anyway you could clarify which release this is from?
 * Ref 1 and 4 are the same manual, the ref 3 is slightly different because it only exists online and is the North American version of the manual (I'm not sure if it's significantly different from European manuals), but I don't know how to clarify how they're different. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know what release they're from? Could you reference the Sony part number like you've done with the North American one? Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In Ref 32 (IGN reference for the Famitsu claim), I didn't notice the game listed in the Top 100 list? Is the other reference (Culdcept Central) considered reliable? I note that the reference makes the publisher out to be Famitsu, but I couldn't see a link between them on the website.
 * Culdcept Central appeared in the VG reliable sources search engine when I searched for it, so I take it maybe is, though I'm not sure how to judge. The Top 100 list is mentioned in a Giantbomb entry but I was discouraged from using it. Anyway fixed the publisher. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Under development:


 * "Japanese studio MuuMuu Co. Ltd (later renamed Ultra Co., Ltd), which inspires the name of the MuuMuu creatures that features in all three games" - reference is in Japanese which is no problem, however a Google Translate of the page didn't seem to show anything relating to the company name inspiring the creature names. Could you check and advise?
 * I remember reading it somewhere while I was on the search for sources, but I can't remember how to find it. But it's absolute logic, I'll try to find another source but I shouldn't see this as a problem? If not I'll have to remove it. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 21:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's in the article, it'll need a source no matter how logical it appears to be. If you take it out of the article, it'll be a relevant fact that's missing and the article wouldn't meet 1b in my opinion. Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Under reception and legacy:


 * "The graphics were also critically acclaimed by critics and owners alike" - nothing to back up the owners acclaim here.
 * Owners refer to just people who play the game (an audience as a whole). I think as any review summarises the audience's feelings of a game as a whole, I'll leave this sentence alone for now, but if you want/disagree I can cut this sentence down? ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 21:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To me, owners would be folks who went out and bought the game, not publications that were likely sent copies to review by the game creators, people who borrowed a copy off their mate or people who rented a copy from Blockbuster. As such, I stand by the original point that there's nothing in the source material to backup this claim. Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "even suggesting that it could be the game of the year were it not for the emergence of other competition at the time" - This is attributed to ref 23 and 29, but the scan in 29 doesn't seem to cover it (only mentions it could be the "sleeper game of the year"). What was the exact quote from the publication that supports this?
 * Could be a small mix up, moved the refs around to support the quote. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 21:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * More of a large mix up now - the article attributes it to Gamepro, but you've added another source that isn't Gamepro to support it. There are now three references supporting this statement when there should only be one. Two of the references appear to be the same thing, which is the Gamepro review, but the article appears to be scanned in it's entirety and I can't see anything there along the lines of "this could've be game of the year". So same question - what's the exact quote from the publication that supports this? Techtri (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Fahey stated that Jumping Flash! would always have a large legacy in videogaming history, despite its initial overshadow from newer platformers such as Crash Bandicoot." - I couldn't see any comparisons to Crash Bandicoot in the provided ref.
 * Just used it as an example myself as it was a successful game at the time (which I probably shouldn't have). I've reworded. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 21:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Just noticed another issue with the references - Refs 39 and 40 both point to an Edge review from June 1995, apparently to reference the fact that the game spawned a sequel released in 1996? Techtri (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I found an archive link for the reference used for the PSN release dates, but it only covers the release of JF in 2007, not JF 2 in 2009. Techtri (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

*Another ref check issue: Ref 12 - ""Edge - Pre Screen". Edge (Future) (19): 42. April 1995." is cited for the following sentence "Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) initially believed that Jumping Flash would be remembered as the first appearance of a new "platform star" with the same longevity as Sonic the Hedgehog or Mario" but the only references to Sonic and SCE in the source state "The plot may sound suspiciously like Sonic's but the action is reassuringly different" and (two paragraphs on) "Jumping Flash could provide SCE with its first home-grown winner". Techtri (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, I see it in the source. It's a caption, rather than in the article body. Techtri (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

2a:


 * In the lead it mentions "Jumping Flash! has been described as being synonymous with Sony's début gaming hardware" but I couldn't see anything along these lines under the Reception/Legacy section.
 * It was used a technology demonstration and was also bundled with the console in Japan? I think that contributes to Sony's success (many of the reviews provided in this article states that this game gave Sony a 'boost'). I would leave this in as it gives the reader a general idea, but it's up to the reviewers if it should be removed? ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 21:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:OR "(original research) includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Taking the fact it was a tech demo and a bundled title and coming to the conclusion that makes it synonymous with the hardware seems to be covered by the above statement. Techtri (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if I haven't explained any of the above very well, and I'll be happy to clarify. Thanks, Techtri (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you for taking the time to review this, I've addressed everything but there are a couple of things you might want to take a look at. All the refs now have work, publishers, authors clarified etc. Thanks to your review the prose has definitely improved, so this article is improving as the review comes along. Of course it's still up to you if you want to oppose it, but before anything happens I would like to make sure everything is addressed and everyone here is satisfied with the article. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 21:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Staying with an oppose for the moment. The prose is still well short of being of a professional standard. Some of the references (1up, PSN) appear dead without archive links. The refs that are there are still a bit of a mess. See the Edge Ref 11 for example - are you sure that's on Page 41, because the scan of Page 42 (which appears to be cited both as Ref 12 and 15) seems to be the complete article? Techtri (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: A closer look suggests that this article is a sloppy mess that should not have been promoted to GA, let alone FA status. Jaguar's seeming inability to accurately cite and summarize sources appears to be a widespread problem. For example, the Giant Bomb entry on Jumping Flash!—which is edited by random users and blatantly not a RS—says nothing about any Famitsu list. Nor does IGN support the claim that Famitsu "ranked Jumping Flash! among the magazine's top 120 PlayStation games of all time in 2000." In fact, IGN is discussing a list of only 100 games, and there is no evidence "Culdcept Central" (a fansite dedicated to the Culdcept series) is remotely reliable (it's certainly not listed at WikiProject_Video_games/Sources). Likewise, while GamePro predicts Jumping Flash! might be the sleeper hit of the year, this is very different from a potential Game of the Year obscured by competitors not in existence at the time of writing. That Jaguar sees nothing wrong with using a review of ''Jumping Flash! 2 as a source on the gameplay of Jumping Flash!, that he doesn't understand why it would be problematic to attribute something "I remember'' reading" to a random source obscured by a language barrier, and that he is actually prepared to argue with FAC reviewers over blatant original research (acclaim from "owners and critics alike") or outright nonsense ("synonymous with Sony's début gaming hardware") says it all about his seriousness as an editor.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I am still working hard on the article as I have been for months. Because this article has not received any in depth comments prior to this FAC review it was very difficult for me to make the changes. I do appreciate you taking the time to review this and I thank you for writing down your comments, but using this FAC as to judge my "seriousness as an editor" is needlessly personal, insulting and incorrect. On the contrary I have not argued with anyone regarding the comments, as to say during many GA reviews it is within the nominator's right to question some comments (which as a reviewer I respect). I will still address your concerns above and sort out everything to do with the refs, but I'm still frustrated on why you use this as a reason for personal attacks. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 14:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.