Talk:Spyro the Dragon/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA nomination successful following adequate changes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 14:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Not an opportunity I can miss! If I don't have any comments posted by the end of April, then ping me here or leave a reminder on my talk page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's kick it off with the infobox and lead.

Infobox[edit]

  • If known, I would give a more specific European release than October 1998
  • Seems that the specific date generally cited is October 23rd. I will try and find a reliable source to support this, though it may be a bit of a dig. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 15:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to mention all content listed within infobox mentioned somewhere in the article body, keeping in mind that WP:INFOBOXREF says you don't need to cite details there that are already sourced within prose
  • So to be clear, are you indicating that I should either include the individual staff credits in the body or remove them altogether? ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 14:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added everything to the Development section, from what I can tell. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 13:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • See my above comment on the North America release date
  • Starting two consecutive sentences with "the" feels repetitive
  • What in the world is "realistic" about a game featuring a dragon?
  • Fair point, but I'm just going off of what's said in the source (ref. 13, "Always Independent: The Story of Insomniac Games). I think the meaning behind this is that the graphics in particular initially took more of a lifelike approach, as opposed to the more exaggerated, cartoonish style that the game ultimately had.
Think Resident Evil versus Ape Escape- neither are really realistic in concept, but the former tries to present a realistic-looking environment with realistic characters and physics, but integrates it with fictitious, paranormal themes, while the latter is just goofy and over-the-top. This is just my input though– again, I'm only going off of what the source says. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 14:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then make it clearer that you're referring to the visuals SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spyro the Dragon was released by Sony Computer Entertainment in 1998 as part of a general effort"..... you don't need to mention the release year more than once
  • I'm not sure "unique" is the best tone here, and you can just say "the game's graphics and gameplay"

More will follow later. I'll probably do this section-by-section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'm digging the gradual feedback process you've got going so far, as perhaps it will give me more of a chance to process and work through each individual section as you continue through them. Looking forward to more suggestions soon. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 14:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay[edit]

  • No licensing concerns for File:Spyro ingame psx.jpg, though I'd put "Toasty" in double quotation marks (as shown here) for the caption as opposed to single quotation marks. See MOS:QUOTEMARKS.
  • Use straight quotation marks for "Homeworlds", not curly ones per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, though this doesn't use that exact word as you imply by using quotation marks around it. I'd be fine with just "home worlds" unquoted or simply "worlds". Not sure the term is supposed to be just one compound word.
  • Changed, at least for now. I could've sworn that the official term for the worlds was "Homeworlds," though I could be recalling correctly. You do seem to be right in that the source doesn't directly refer to them as such, so I will do some digging through primary resources, such as the manual, to try and figure it out for certain. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 13:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each Homeworld contains 6 levels, including a boss fight and a hidden flight stage that involves flying throughout an environment and destroying a number of objects within a time limit"..... Actually, Gnasty's World doesn't have a timed flight stage unlike the previous five worlds. I wouldn't count "Gnasty's Loot" as one because there's no time limit for collecting all of its treasure. "6 levels" is also inaccurate when there's 3 generic levels for the Dragon Worlds (2 in Gnasty's), 1 boss per each world (the last being Gnasty Gnorc), and flight levels in everything except Gnasty's (which instead has the loot that you must have all 80 dragons and 12 dragon eggs to unlock in addition to all but 2,000 of the gems as you collect the last ones there). To be fair, GameRevolution didn't give accurate counts. Yes, fully playing through this game repeatedly helps me remember such details, though couldn't name every single level or how many gems/dragons are in each.
  • Fair enough! Thanks for the insight, as I admittedly haven't played thoroughly through Spyro 1 yet (it's a title I've been yearning to own for a while, though I have emulated it once or twice...). Will try & work out a good way to rework this segment as appropriate. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 13:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SNUGGUMS: I've went ahead and generalized this segment considerably, so that it doesn't specify the time limit or the number of stages in each world. Take a gander at it and let me know if you think it could use any further reworking. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 14:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel "frozen" or "crystallized" would be more accurate than "petrified" in "a number of petrified dragons"
  • While "multicolored gemstones with corresponding values" is accurate, gem values are a minor detail here when we're trying to give readers a general overview of the game. The more important part is that players must collect them.
  • Same goes for "breakable boxes, and treasure chests which must be unlocked and opened via a key"; we can just say "treasure chests"
  • "Additionally, some levels have a stolen dragon egg that must be reclaimed by chasing and defeating an thief" is a bit wordy, try something like "There are also stolen dragon eggs that must be reclaimed by chasing and defeating thieves". I should also note there are levels with multiple thieves.
  • "While it isn't mandatory to collect every item in the game for completion, a certain number of them must be retrieved in each Homeworld before Spyro can be taken to the next one"..... avoid contractions unless part of a quote or title, and you actually DO have to collect everything to complete the game, so cut that portion out. This part is even contradicted by the next sentence "Additionally, finding every collectible in the game unlocks an additional world that otherwise cannot be accessed."
  • This seems like a case of poor wording on my part; what I meant to get across was that the player can still defeat Gnasty and unlock the game's ending (or at least one of the 2 alternate ones) without finding every single collectible, if I'm not mistaken. As for the contraction, my apologies, as it is a writing habit on my part and an unconscious mistake that I often make when editing articles. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 13:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely more accurate, but I'd cut the still cut the collection requirement (or how it is Gnot Gneeded :P) for facing him as it's minor detail
  • Props for the play-on words. Seeing people with good senses of humor around here is always Gnice. ;) Regardless, I removed the bit about the collection requirement. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 14:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work, and I always appreciate a nice sense of humor as well SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spyro’s moveset" should read "Spyro's moveset" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
  • "while larger enemies can only be hit from a distance using fire breath, as they will immediately crush Spyro if he comes too near to them"..... distance and getting to close are excessive details, and I think it would be better to say "defeated" or "killed" than "hit"
  • I know that "Spyro can also use his wings to glide in midair, letting him travel further distances in the air and access areas otherwise unreachable via a regular jump." is true, but IGN doesn't support the distance details. Let's implement something that does for this sentence.

"Plot" section will be next. Not too bad so far. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

  • "An TV interview"..... A TV interview or an interview would be correct grammar
  • Whoops, my mistake. I must've written simply "an interview" at first and then added the TV without appropriately adjusting the grammar. Nonetheless, fixed. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 01:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, try to avoid super short paragraphs as they make the text look choppy, so I recommend merging the second and third ones from this section
  • "once and for all" from "Spyro eagerly sets out to locate Gnasty and defeat him once and for all" is overkill
  • Removed.
  • More MOS:QUOTEMARKS issues. If using an iPhone to edit (and I do realize iOS set the curly quotation marks as a new default with one of its updates), then try holding that button to more easily see the straight quotation marks that Wikipedia prefers and select that option. That's one trick I've discovered with mobile editing (where I use a "desktop mode" as that makes it much easier for me to access and work on pages) and general phone use as I own one myself.
  • Fixed. I do the exact same thing when mobile editing (I tried downloading the mobile app, but it's pretty useless as there are several things that you simply can't do, such as easily access an article's talk page). I actually did discover that keyboard trick at some point by sheer chance, and I try to utilize it whenever I edit WP, but I seem to frequently forget, hence why there are so many curly Q's that seem to have gotten past the radar here.

"Development" will be a big one from a glance, but I'll let you reply to the above before I go into that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Development[edit]

  • MOS:PARAGRAPHS also discourages super big paragraphs, and the first paragraph here is uncomfortably long to read. Let's make it easier on the eyes by splitting this into two. I personally recommend separating after the "demographics of the PlayStation were decreasing and its selection of children's titles were greatly outnumbered by the Nintendo 64's" bit, which is about halfway into it.
  • "Although Disruptor was critically lauded, it was not successful financially; however, the game's praise was enough to impress Universal Interactive Studios and encourage the team to continue with their next endeavor." is quite a mouthful! You could split this by placing a period after "financially". Also, contrary to what the first part seems to suggest, reviews and sales are their own elements without any connection to one another.
  • Not convinced the release year for DragonHeart is relevant here; the more pertinent detail is how that partially influenced the game.
  • Likewise, copyright concerns over Pete's Dragon are more important than when that was released.
  • Starting two consecutive sentences with "During" (especially when the word "development" quickly follows even if one of them has a "the" in between) feels repetitive.
  • Removed "during development" from the sentence about Spyro's color.
  • "In an interview, Ted Price stated that they gave up the series after releasing Spyro: Year of the Dragon because his actions were limited, due to not being able to hold anything in his hands." doesn't really fit here. It's better placed in that sequel's article or maybe in a section discussing that game.
  • Fair point. Removed this sentence completely.
  • You should use a semi-colon after "two different versions of a level", not a hyphen.
  • Noted and changed. Also, I changed an instance of the word "renders" to "generates" since the word would otherwise have appeared twice in quick succession. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 12:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in an interview" makes "According to Copeland in an interview, each song in the game was written in order to correspond to a specific level, but this correlation ultimately went unused" a bit wordy, so scratch that part from it
  • This doesn't mention anything on genres
  • I presume you're speaking in reference to the line "The music is primarily progressive rock-themed" line, which I actually meant to remove before because it's essentially unsourced at this point. I've now done so, though it may be worth readding something about the genre if I or anyone else finds a good source to support it. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 12:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is indeed what I meant, though no prejudice against restoring if it can be reliably referenced. Unfortunately, Discogs (what you inserted for one of the tracks) is full of user-generated content and therefore isn't a trustworthy source. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not realize this, albeit only because from what I recall I’ve seen it used similarly as a source for track listings on other articles. In this case I will remove the detail about the Copeland album until, again, I or someone else can locate a reliable source. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 17:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "best compositional work that he's done"..... see my above comment on contractions

OK that was the biggest section yet. "Release" thankfully shouldn't take as long once I get to that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Release[edit]

  • This section's second paragraph is rather short compared to its first one.
  • Combined the paragraphs for the meantime, at least until more details can be found to further expand the section. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 13:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sales would be better placed here than in "reception" since how many copies a game sells has no connection to how critics liked it.
  • Which details from the section are you referring to? There is a "sales" section in the reception. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 13:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind, it looks like I misread your comment. Nonetheless, don't other articles usually have the sales details in the reception? While it doesn't have anything to do with critical reception, it does relate to audience/consumer reception, as in how many casual players expressed enough interest in the game to purchase it, if that makes any sense. That seems more like it relates to reception than it does with the game's release (which, generally speaking, details events prior to when people would "receive" the game). Just my thoughts on the matter. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 13:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I'd go so far to say "usually", and though I have seen sections titled "release and reception" to accommodate release dates, reviews, and sales (mainly when there isn't much substance for release/copies sold), I will say that "reception" tends to refer to critical reception unless specifically noted otherwise. My qualm with the current setup is that it gives a misleading impression that critics' opinions have any correlation with how many copies are sold. "Release" sections on the other hand can go into when something premiered and its following commercial performance. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess in that case I will move the section when I get the chance to. Thanks for further elaborating. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 11:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed. I've been struggling to find such a source, might have to look through some old magazine scans in order to find it. If I can't, I guess we may have to just remove it for now. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 14:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've already linked Crash Bandicoot 3 in the prior section, so unlink it here
  • Remove the stray comma after "which" from "Nintendo 64, which, had a far larger library"
  • "misdeeds against sheep" is a personal opinion, just go with "actions"
  • Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage! has an exclamation point in its title, and let's be more specific on when the PS1 trilogy came to the digital PlayStation Store
  • While I know the bit on Reignited Trilogy is true, we do need to cite this release date

That unsurprisingly was much easier to review than "development". Additional comments will follow in the future. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sales[edit]

  • If known, it would be nice to include how many UK copies this sold to be the nation's 3 highest selling game
  • Hm... not too sure about this. If it is known then it's in Famitsu, which is beyond my already relatively small-ish threshold of rabbit hole digging since it's a Japan-only publication. Otherwise, IGN is the only gaming outlet that reported on these sales charts as far as I can tell, so I'm not confident in the plausibility of finding a specific figure for this. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 03:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the overall sales figure given is from 2007. Unless something more recent is available and can be used, it would probably be helpful to attribute the ~5M to that year.

"Reception" will be up next. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

  • "he'd played" → "he had played"
  • Done.
  • Don't alter quotes like you have with "proficient, fully 3D platform game[s]" (which actually reads "a proficient, fully 3D platform game"); it detracts from integrity of citation use
  • Blasto from "excels over Blasto in every way imaginable." needs italics
  • "as the main factor causing it to slightly pale in comparison to other games such as Super Mario 64 and Banjo-Kazooie" is quite a mouthful! Let's go with something more concise like "as the main thing that made it inferior to Super Mario 64 and Banjo-Kazooie" or "the main reason he found games like Super Mario 64 and Banjo-Kazooie superior to it".
  • Modified to make the sentence shorter.
  • "EGM's 'Sushi' said that the graphics were 'among the finest' on the PlayStation." is missing its own citation
  • Same with "Fielder spoke positively of Copeland's compositional work, calling it 'wonderfully atmospheric.'"
  • Placed GameSpot ref here.
  • "Fielder declaring that it fixed the common issues present in most other 3D platform games" is for some reason attributed to an Electronic Gaming Monthly citation when it should be citing GameSpot
  • Wow, apparently I was seriously rushing to get these done. Either way, I've fixed this as well.
  • "that controls weren't well-suited"..... were not well-suited, or maybe "were unsuitable"
  • "and the extra levels"..... level should be singular, and you could also use "bonus level" or "last level" since Gnasty's Loot is the only thing left after defeating Gnasty

Legacy[edit]

  • "Following Year of the Dragon, Insomniac chose to stop developing Spyro games, as they felt they had started to run out of ideas for the series; however, the series was continued across various different developers, and shifted to several other platforms besides PlayStation." is rather wordy. I'd split the "however" and everything after that into its own sentence. Also, none of this is supported by the given source.

References[edit]

  • Don't italicize "Insomniac Games website"
  • Actually changed this to www.insomniacgames.com since it's the website section of the citation. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 13:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I. G. N." → IGN, and citations using "Staff, I. G. N." as an author should list IGN as their publisher
  • Ref's (for personal reference)- 6, 19, 20, 21 & 24
  • Ok, these are the ones I fixed. Let me know if I missed any others somehow.
  • Unless I'm misreading something, it looks like the author of this review is Randy Nelson
  • Avoid bare URLs
  • Expanded 2 bare urls, and also fixed ref 19 which wasn't looking right.
  • Something's malformatted with citation 15 ("SPYRO Character Designs" from The Animation Academy); I had to go into edit mode to collect and access its URL
  • From Citation 22 ("Spyro the Dragon returns to PSN next week!"), get "PlaystationBlog.Europe" out of the title, and just use "PlayStation.Blog" as its publisher
  • "Cool Consumer Promotions Support Launch of Highly Anticipated Spyro -2- : Ripto's Rage!" is missing Business Wire as a publisher
  • Unlink "PlayStation Power" as that doesn't have its own article or seem likely to anytime soon, also that and Gamasutra should have italics
  • Done and done. 13:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:DATE, be consistent with using either MDY or DMY date formats
  • Ref's to update- 1, 3, 13, 28
  • Fixed most of these; the one problem is that the dates for citation 1 continue to display on a DMY format for some reason, even though, at least as far as I can tell, I’ve changed both to MDY. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 18:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe that's because "df" is set to "dmy-all" (just a guess from when I viewed it with edit mode). You either way still need italics for PlayStation Power within its citation, and while this isn't a deal breaker for GA, it would be nice to have a span for when development took place. See the Year of the Dragon article for a good example. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After further thought, I decided to just fix things myself and pass this nomination as they're just minor bits and holding up over one possible detail isn't worth it. Feel free to add on your own time instead if you do find that. It also turns out my guess was right with dmy formatting for archive date in ref#1. Congrats for getting a GA-level article! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

  • Prose: Contractions and overly long sentences need to be fixed
  • Referencing: Not quite everything is properly cited, and some reference formatting needs to be touched up
  • Coverage: Seems to address all the major aspects without excess detail
  • Neutrality: Free of bias as far as I can tell
  • Stability: No concerns here
  • Media: Both images included are non-free uploads with appropriate fair-use rationales
  • Verdict: Quite good overall and has definitely improved since the review began! Putting the nomination on hold. If the remaining issues are sufficiently addressed in seven days or less from now, then I will pass. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spyro_the_Dragon/GA1&oldid=898643487"