Talk:Neutopia

Please help

I just added a stubby plot summary that may need to be expanded within reason. I'm a little disturbed by the fact that the list of similarities is longer than the gameplay and plot summary sections combined. I'm gonna try to change that. Larrythefunkyferret 00:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

PR & GAN

You shouldn't have this up for both. Please drop one or the other. I'd say the GAN is premature.陣内_Jinnai 21:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I figured the article is up to a decent size and is fairly broad in coverage, plus everything is currently sourced. Nobody has responded to the peer review in almost a month. –MuZemike 22:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neutopia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is fine, save for one line: "Jazeta has a life meter, which increases by one edit every time the player collects a medallion or finding a monk throughout the spheres". For one, I assume that "edit" is either a typo or something not explained to the reader. And the "or finding" portion of the text sounds like it's missing a word to make it work right. Additionally, I feel that the Plot section should be moved above Gameplay; this allows us to not have to explain who the characters are in the Gameplay section. Also, in respect to the Reception section, opinions made should be cited to the original author, instead of the site (or if the author isn't available, use something such as "an editor for [website] said". - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

   Looks gewd. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   What makes Defunct Gamers a reliable source? Two other points: Destructoid's reference links to a GameSpot URL, and the PlayStation Blog URL is not properly formatted with all the cite web junk. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

   Defunct Games is an independent video game journalism website (i.e. they're basically like IGN, GameSpot, etc. but without all the corporate backing and other big-money BS). Their description is here (with more information on the people whom they look for in their "help wanted" section, which explains their video game journalism, reviews, podcasts, editorial standards, etc. –MuZemike 19:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

   It's really a bother trying to figure out the usefulness of this site; I'm really on the fence about it. I'm going to bring it up with WP:VG/RS. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   My only concern with the images is that they link directly to the source; I was once told that they should link to the page that they are used on, to illustrate their use by the site owner. However, that could have changed, so what do I know? :v - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good work; we just have a few small problems we need to iron out. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the issue in #2, I have made the corrections to all the other issues (hopefully) with this one edit here. –MuZemike 19:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note, I'm going to let it pass once the other issues I'm about to read are dealt with, with or without Defunct Games, on the condition that it be removed if determined unreliable for use. However, three little issues: one, the PS Nation blog doesn't seem to be very significant, and should be replaced with something more reliable; two, there's a URL without proper formatting; and three, Neutopia II should be mentioned in the article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, as I forgot the GAN, and the review fell off my watchlist. Anyways, #3 is corrected. However, two questions for the others:

1. Would GameZone GameZone be an OK replacement for that PS Nation source?
2. I couldn't find the URL that lacked formatting, after scanning through. Could you point out the one that needs it?

–MuZemike 19:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

[1]; also, GameZone would be an acceptable substitute. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, had to renege on that one source, as it didn't have anything on release dates. Instead, I included the release date from the Japanese PlayStation site with regards to the Japanese release date, and IGN for the North American release date; I also put in one more small thing, saying that it was released with several other TurboGrafx-16 games by Hudson Soft. –MuZemike 20:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Everything checks out. Just make sure that you follow whatever decision is made regarding Defunct Games. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)