Talk:Madeline (video game series)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 21:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I'll handle the review here. If I'm not back in four days, ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • In the "Titles", you give the date of release for the first title. Why isn't this stated in the infobox?
  • This was added after I worked on the article so I forgot to add it to the infobox. Thank you for the correction. Added. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The games were made in association with The Incredible World of DiC (the company that held the property license, and were behind the TV series of the same name), as well as other one-off companies for certain games. - This section needs rewriting for tidiness and to remove the brackets.
  • The specific subject matter varies from game to game. - The wording feels clunky.
  • The series was conceived as a way to provide educational material to children in preschool and the early stages of elementary school, using a recognizable character. - The use of the comma indicates a longer sentence that's been cut off. It needs removing so the whole thing runs smoothly.
Gameplay
  • The whole section seems to sport too many quotes.
  • Donna Cazet of Technology & Learning wrote the games had "much in common" with the edutainment series Humongous Entertainment's Big Thinkers, Davidson's Fisher-Price, Knowledge Adventure's JumpStart, and The Learning Company's Reader Rabbit.[42] Terri Payne Butler of The Horn Book Magazine suggested Madeline European Adventures required players to search across each screen in a similar fashion to "much more complicated computer games [like] Myst".[43] - This section feels more in place within a reception section. It needs rewriting, and the text that sounds like reception text either moving or removing entirely.
  • Software and CD-ROM Reviews on File said the games were "tinged with European references" and had an "international flavor".[15] - Same as above.
  • According to Jennifer Bachman O'Brien of Computer Shopper, the young play-testers enjoyed the "Let's Decorate" activity from Madeline Thinking Games Deluxe, where they can design Madeline's bedroom by changing the wallpaper, carpeting, and furniture.[51] - Same as above.
  • The games need to be played in 256-color mode "to avoid performance slowdowns", according to Julie Strasberg of PC Magazine.[52] In Madeline Thinking Games, players are able to "sing along with 10 original music videos".[53] - Same as above. Plus does saying that it needs specific hardware to player really belong in the "Gameplay" section?
  • Jennifer Bachman O'Brien of Computer Shopper suggested that "even the youngest pre-readers can participate in Madeline Thinking Games, as "Madeline provides narration throughout."[54] A writer from The Daily News recommended the series for children "ages 18 months to four years."[55] Michael Saunders of The Boston Globe said the games were suitable to first- and second-graders, while also being accessible to kindergarten children who are computer savvy.[56] Software and CD-ROM Reviews on File said Madeline Thinking Games was recommended for children ages five and older.[9] A reviewer from SuperKids suggested the games were "best suited" to children aged seven to ten due to the complex skills required, though noted younger players would enjoy the story and simpler puzzles, while being guided by an adult.[11] A SuperKids reviewer noted that while Madeline Thinking Games Deluxe is "obviously aimed at children in the early elementary school years", older testers enjoyed the game too, despite "not [being] terrifically challenged."[57] - Same as above.
Goals
  • There's so much here that I need to condense it into a general statement. There are a couple of pieces that can be incorporated into the text somewhere else, but the rest, as with several parts of the Gameplay section, it sounds like out-of-place Reception or "Impact/Legacy" blurb. I'll list a couple of explicit examples that are relevant to the series from a development/intention standpoint rather than simply commentary.
    • Creative Wonders president Greg Bestick designed the series to embody the company's mission statement: "[to] produce software that causes the mind to soar and is always easy and fun to use."[76] Developers consulted with children, parents, and teachers during the design and development of each installment.[77] Madeline Classroom Companion: Preschool and Kindergarten was playtested by children and their parents at Redwood City Kid's Club and Sequoia Children's Center.[31] Seven year old FamilyPC child tester Jessica McKinstry, said she "learned to add into the hundreds" by playing Madeline Classroom Companion.[78] - Plus the quote above it, it could be incorporated into the "Development" section.
    • I think that we know that Madeline is a character who is popular with both boys and girls. Although parents are more likely to buy the software for girls, we didn't have to come out and say that. I think it's kind of a turnoff to parents to actually ... see a box that says on it 'For Girls Only'. —  Creative Wonders producer Holly Smevog, Computer & Entertainment Retailing interview[93] - Same as above.
References
  • This section will require a lot of work, as a majority of the references were improperly created. I apologize for the mess of this section. I understand if you fail the article for this section alone as there are a lot of errors. Aoba47 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 35 and 36 use Amazon. Really not comfortable with this. Don't know whether it's a nono or not, but...
  • The Amazon links are there only to prove the existence/release and release date of a product, which I believe is okay on here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 152 needs updating, and I'm not sure one site's company resume (which I think can be accessed by site members and not just staff) is admissible.
  • I would think that it would be admissible, since it is a company's profile posted on a reliable source (IGN), but please let me know if this is incorrect and I will remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 121 and 170 are bare URLs.
  • I have removed 121 (I do not believe LinkedIn is an acceptable source). I have also removed 170 as I did not find it to be that reliable or necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 140, and indeed many references within the article, lack an accessdate.
  • Refs 133, 135 and 136 use the yymmdd dating system when the the rest of the citations use mmddyy. This needs correcting.
  • Refs 1 to 3, 12, 16, 19, 25, 33, 42, 43, 49, 50, 53, 60 to 63, 67, 75, 80 to 82, 85 to 95, 101 to 104, 109, 111, 115, 118, 122, 137, 141, 142, 144, 145, 149, 163 to 168, 171, 175, 178, 186, 187, 189, 190, 194 to 197, 199, 202, 205, 210, 213, 214, 218, 220 and 221 all require the reader to be signed into the website, and are thus next to useless for citing information for casual readers and many Wikipedians. You must find alternate suitable sources.
  • I remember there was a similar discussion about this on the Tasha Yar page. WP:PAYWALL ("Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible... Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access.") was cited as a reason allowing the use of "subscription required" material. I agree that the references in this article are a mess. I will add the "subscription required" tag to these while I try to correct everything. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ProtoDrake, Aoba47, online sources that are behind a firewall are perfectly valid, as for that matter are sources that are printed and not online at all. There is no valid requirement at GA that sources be accessible, just that they be reliable. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they aren't readily accessible, they're not readily verifiable, which calls their reliability into question. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by: Nothing wrong with paywalled sources for our purposes. (I mean, there is an argument that it is morally wrong, but nothing technically wrong as a citation.) Some sources are only available offline and others were only digitized behind academic paywalls. It's totally fine to ask the author for a personal copy of the source if you'd like to verify what they read. It's especially worth doing this when the paywalled source may not be reliable enough to use as a source in the first place, as is the case with many reviewers in niche fields. I am no longer watching this pageping if you'd like a response czar 20:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments about this. I hope that I did not sound rude in my earlier comments. I am just not familiar with this subject, and I greatly appreciate everyone's feedback. I agree that it would be best to use sources that could be accessed by everyone. Citations/references are always something I still get a little confused by/lost with on here so I will definitely research this more in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
  • @ProtoDrake: It may be best to quick-fail this as there are a lot of issues. The references section is a complete mess to be perfectly honest, and as the article itself is quite bloated (as noted by a copy-editor from the Guild of Copy Editors). I will unfortunately not have enough time or energy to adequately commit to improving this article. Thank you ProtoDrake for your review, and I apologize for any inconvenience. @Coin945: If you want to take up this review, then please let ProtoDrake know so you two can continue the review. I greatly appreciate your help with the article, but I feel that it has become much more of your project now than mine. I have addressed some parts of the review, but I will have to respectfully bow out of this one. Thank you again to both of you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that this article needs a long and extensive rewrite beyond the scope of a GA review. I'm reluctantly forced to Fail this article. When this article has been tidied up, it can be renominated. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the bloat, which is a shame because there is a lot of good information here. Instead of listing every source (á la Carmen Sandiego in North Dakota...), it's better to put the most important parts of the topic in an easily readable. The goal is not to document every time the game was mentioned but to construct an overview of the topic for readers of a generalist encyclopedia. I am no longer watching this pageping if you'd like a response czar 20:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, and I completely agree with you. I think that this is something that should definitely be kept in mind when reshaping this article for the future. Coin945 deserves all of the credit for finding the information (especially regarding the company history and development). I will most likely not be working on this article anytime in the near future, but your feedback (as well as ProtoDrake) is a wonderful starting point for either Coin945 or any other future editor interested in improving this further. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just read this talk page yesterday, I didn't realize the article was in the midst of a GA review. I just noticed the article was listed as an unanswered peer review since October and thought I'd respond. I apologize if my numerous edits resulted in any disruption of this process. It was not my intent.Dig Deeper (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dig deeper: No need to apologize. I do not believe the article was ready for GAN, and I greatly appreciate your edits as they have helped to improve the article a lot. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies everyone, I was (and still am) on holiday so I never read this until today. I was secretly hoping the article would reach the PR review before the GA review because I felt there was some remaining bloat and imperfections. I was right. I think there is a gear article in there somewhere and I think it is an important article for the WP:VG project. I would request that @Dig deeper: continue their great work, particularly in the development section, where I must admit I went a bit overboard. I've provided the slab of stone, as it were. Now it just needs to be carved into sculpture. But all the resources are there.--Coin945 (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madeline_(video_game_series)/GA1&oldid=756159611"