Wikipedia:Peer review/Jumping Flash!/archive3

Jumping Flash!
I'm thinking about renominating this at FAC and feel that the article has improved since its last review. I've attempted to remove all traces of original research and cleaned up the sources. I believe the content is all there, but I need comments/suggestions before I renominate.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, JAG  UAR   22:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: I intend to clean-up the reception section soon, as my writing standards have apparently improved since July 2014. JAG UAR   23:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Z105space
Here are a few points that I have to offer. I will leave the prose to more experienced editors in this field.
 * Alt text for all images
 * Done JAG  UAR   14:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * References
 * There should be a consistent date format to use with the references (British English and American English formats are used). You should only use one format.
 * All dates converted JAG  UAR   14:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Reference #4 needs an access date
 * Added JAG  UAR   14:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * #7, #32, #33, #34, #36 need publication dates
 * Done all, except from the Guinness World Records link which didn't have a date JAG  UAR   20:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * #19 needs an section for the title's translation from Japanese to English and an publication date
 * I've removed this one outright as I couldn't find the text in the source JAG  UAR   20:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * #22, #26, #30 should all use the cite journal format
 * Done JAG  UAR   22:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * #34 the publisher should be IGN not Famitsu and requires an author
 * Fixed, and added date. Unfortunately this one doesn't say who wrote it JAG  UAR   20:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * #6 and #38 both an archive link which displays the message "Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt." Is there any way to rectify this?
 * 1UP is back up!? I never knew that! I think that's why it's rendering the archived versions useless, so the original links should now work JAG  UAR   22:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * #39 will need an author link to Matt Casamassina
 * Added JAG  UAR   14:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That is all I have for the moment. I will have another look at the article later on. Z105space  (talk)  08:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you very much for your comments! Every little helps. I think I've addressed everything. I vow that this article won't fail its next FAC, so I'll take no half measures. JAG  UAR   22:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rhain1999
I'll just point out anything that I see:
 * I'd probably link "camera" to Virtual camera system, upon first use, but it's not a big deal.
 * Linked. JAG  UAR   21:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There isn't any reference at the end of the first Gameplay paragraph.
 * The health meter is in the manual, so I attributed it to that. JAG  UAR   21:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The third Gameplay paragraph seems a little short; it could probably be merged with another paragraph, although I'm sure it's not a huge problem.
 * I'm aware that Plot sections don't always require references, but a lot of the Plot here seems to be telling the background of the story, as opposed to briefly re-telling the plot itself (which is in no way a bad thing, but I'd recommend sourcing it. Even a source to the game itself (à la The Last of Us, Grand Theft Auto V) should be suitable).
 * Funny as I only removed the references yesterday! I've added them back in. JAG  UAR   21:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd personally change the full stop after "phases" (Development and release, paragraph 2) to a colon, but this is a personal opinion only; it's great as it is.
 * Added, it looks better. JAG  UAR   21:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Link Double agent.
 * Done JAG  UAR   21:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no source for "the series came to an end".
 * Added JAG  UAR   21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I recommend archiving all web references.
 * I'd personally link all of the publications (IGN, Edge, Future plc, etc.) and any applicable authors (Greg Miller) in the references, although I think this is just personal preference.
 * For consistency, I'd avoid placing publications such as "IGN" or "Game Revolution" in the author field; just leave them for work or publisher instead.
 * That was slightly messed up. I've done some cleaning. JAG  UAR   22:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a great article, and all of my points above are pretty minor. Great work! – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 03:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd also use last and first, instead of author (in the case of reference 39).


 * Comments by PresN
 * Usually company corporate statuses, like "co., ltd.", are not included when talking about them, as they are not properly part of the company's name- "Exact Co., Ltd. and Ultra Co., Ltd." should therefore be "Exact and Ultra"
 * I agree, I thought leaving in the "co., ltd" made the article feel unnecessarily cluttered. I've removed all of them, except in the publisher field of a citation. JAG  UAR   15:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you referred to it as the "PlayStation console", you should also refer to the "Sharp X68000 home computer"
 * Done JAG  UAR   15:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "The game was generally well received from critics" -> received by critics
 * Fixed JAG  UAR   15:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not the "fifth game generation", it's just the fifth console generation
 * Fixed JAG  UAR   15:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "However, Jumping Flash! did spawn two sequels," - the "however" at the start feels jarring; try "Jumping Flash! did spawn two sequels, however,"
 * Rephrased JAG  UAR   15:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just like the rest of the lead, the infobox doesn't usually require citations- maybe note the director, etc. in Development instead with that cite?
 * I've removed the citations from the infobox as I seem the obsolete due to the infobox not requiring citations (I was always led under the false impression that they had to). I can't see how relevant it would be to include the staff in the development section, but if someone brings that up at the FAC then I'll find a way JAG  UAR   20:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Consider collapsing the release dates in the infobox with a collapsible list template, since the box sticks down so far
 * Done JAG  UAR   20:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "The core of the gameplay is centred around" - "centred on", you can't center "around" something
 * Fixed JAG  UAR   20:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "The player has the ability to shoot a low-powered beam where a target indicator is centred in the middle of the screen." - confusing. Maybe, "The player has the ability to shoot a low-powered beam at a target indicator, centred in the middle of the screen."
 * Thanks, rephrased JAG  UAR   20:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Coins are worth points can also be picked up" -> "Coins that are worth points can also be picked up"
 * Rephrased JAG  UAR   20:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Jumping Flash! is composed of six worlds with three levels each, totalling 18 main levels,[8] of which there are seven boss levels and an extra six bonus stages available." - so... are there 18 levels, or 18 + 6, or 18 + 13?
 * I see how this sounded confusing. Boss levels are the third levels of each world and bonus stages don't count as anything. I've rephrased JAG  UAR   20:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "In the main levels, the objective of the first two levels of each world" - this sentence is not saying what you mean, which is that the first two levels of each world are regular levels.
 * Rephrased JAG  UAR   22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "a mentally-insane astrophysicist" - is there non-mental insanity?
 * Good point, removed "mentally" JAG  UAR   22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Planning to make a large salary" - salary? Is someone paying him?
 * Rephrased to "profit", I hope this sounds better? JAG  UAR   22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Consequently, he also removes and hides the twelve Jet Pods that propel each world" - consequently makes no sense here, and you've only been talking about one planet, so what's "each world"?
 * In the game the 'Crater Planet' is split into little chunks, which is referred to as a "world". Rephrased JAG  UAR   22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "the Universal City Hall dispatches of their agents" - of?
 * Oops, fixed. JAG  UAR   22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "MuuMuus which are described as" - described where?
 * Rephrased JAG  UAR   22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "developers Exact (Excellent Application Create Team)[9] and Ultra Co., Ltd" - again, just Ultra, and again a few sentences later
 * Removed all "Ltd" suffixes from the article JAG  UAR   22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Sharp X68000 home computer" again
 * Done JAG  UAR   22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence starting "Upon seeing Geograph Seal" is really long and snakey; try to cut it in half at least.
 * I've reorganised the two sentences slightly in order to make it shorter JAG  UAR   22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "shares identical gameplay traits from" - shares from? shares with
 * Done JAG  UAR   22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I really think you need to talk a bit about the gameplay differences with the Sharp X68000 game; was it also a 3D platformer? It can't be, right, but you only say that they have almost the same gameplay
 * From gameplay videos I've seen they share the exact same traits and engine with Jumping Flash, apart from a few aesthetic designs. I've rephrased JAG  UAR   13:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Jumping Flash! was among the first games of the platforming genre to be developed with full 3D technology" - in the lead you flatly state it was the first, why the hedging now?
 * This is risky. Guinness World Records states Jumping Flash is the first platform game in true 3D, and they're never wrong. Sure Geograph Seal is almost identical but I don't think anybody owned a Sharp X68000 as they were incredibly expensive. I've changed this sentence to "Jumping Flash! was considered the first game of the platforming genre to be developed with full 3D technology", though I'm sure this will raise some questions at the FAC. If so, I'll link back here and explain sources consider it "the first". JAG  UAR   13:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Co., Ltd ... Co., Ltd"
 * Done JAG  UAR   13:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Many of the tracks were included with tracks of its successor from the Jumping Flash! 2 Original Soundtrack" - uh, this sentence is trying to say two things simultaneously. Did you mean "Many of the tracks were included along with tracks from Jumping Flash! 2 in the Jumping Flash! 2 Original Soundtrack album"? Or did you mean that the tracks were reused in Jumping Flash! 2 itself, and also on the album?
 * I meant the first one, rephrased to make it clearer JAG  UAR   13:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "clean textures.[32][20][24]" - ref ordering, though that's super-minor
 * Sorted JAG  UAR   13:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Reception is laid out fine, though its usually preferred to arrange by topic (gameplay, graphics, etc.), not by publication.
 * I agree. The bulk of the section remains from what I wrote back last year, where my writing standards were a bit different. I'll see what I can do JAG  UAR   13:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Game Revolution stated that the graphics "mind blowing" and the game itself "totally unique" " - either "stated that the graphics were "mind blowing" or "called the graphics "mind blowing""
 * Done JAG  UAR   17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Cut that sentence in half as well- "but also...but nevertheless" is a runon
 * Rephrased JAG  UAR   17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In general, though that's the worst one, you seem to have a hesitancy to cut a review summary into multiple sentences- you don't need to cram everything the reviewer said into a single sentence if it gets awkward.
 * Reception section has been tweaked and copyedited slightly JAG  UAR   17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "did not harm to the "vibrant" atmosphere"
 * Done JAG  UAR   17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you note IGN's "1996" review, you should say when the retro review was
 * Done JAG  UAR   17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "one of the most important ancestors of any 3D platform game at the time" - so, it was an important ancestor at the time, but now isn't? Don't think that's how ancestors work, so some word choice is off here
 * Good catch; removed "at the time" JAG  UAR   17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "also praised the game by having lasting memories" - by having lasting memories? Or for creating lasting memories?
 * Removed JAG  UAR   17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "two sequels to Jumping Flash!, including one spin-off" - if the spinoff isn't one of the two, then it's not "included". "two sequels to Jumping Flash! and one spin-off game"
 * Rephrased JAG  UAR   17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "A loose spin-off, Pocket MuuMuu was" -> "A loose spin-off, Pocket MuuMuu, was"
 * Fixed JAG  UAR   17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing the logic as to when you link the name of a work/publisher in the references and when you don't; you don't seem to be following either the "all the time" or "the first time" patterns. (or the "never" pattern)
 * All publications now linked. JAG  UAR   17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Consider archiving your online references- several of them are redirecting already as the original site has closed.
 * Strangely the 1UP links all seem to be working now. I'll get to archiving most of the refs now. JAG  UAR   17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * So... yeah. You've got some grammar problems, mainly. No promises that I caught them all, but this should help. -- Pres N  01:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, ! I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. Not sure if I should send this to FAC tomorrow or wait a while. JAG  UAR   22:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)