Talk:Vib-Ribbon/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk · contribs) 16:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start the review soon.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Pumpkin Pie its been a while, any update on the review? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PerryPerryD: I was involved in a FAC but I think that will end soon. I also saw some bigger edits and didn't know if you nominated prematurely.

The first thing i notice is that none of the release dates are mentioned in the prose of the article and left only in the lead. That is vital information and the lead is supposed to reflect information that's already in the article.

a lot of names are in the credits but once again, none of the artists and programmers are mentioned in the Development section. The lead needs to only mention key developers that their contributions are more than just listed in the credits.

The last two sentences on the gameplay sound more like development information.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe i have fixed this, as there ARE programmers mentioned in the development section, specifically NanaOn-Sha, and Masaya Matsuura. If you have any other suggestions for the development section, or any other suggestions at all, please let me know. @Blue Pumpkin Pie PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the following are only mentioned in the lead:

Programmers John Belmonte, Anthony Carrico, Yuki Takahashi. For Artists Kiri Matsuura, Takeuchi Nakabayashi, and Tomihiko Murakami.

If you cant verify their contributions outside of credits, then they'll have to be removed from the lead.

The development section mentions the PS1 release but not the PSN release dates. The legacy section covers a lot more release information than it does legacy. Even if the reason why it released in North America was because it was considered popular or a cult classic, that isn't enough to be "Legacy". Sections for legacy I would research cultural impact outside of the game with few exceptions such as notable campaigns to get a game released such as Operation Rainfall, or Mother 3 fan translation.~

Lastly, the reception section seems a little short. Theres no reason why Fangame has the score in the prose. Reception section is full quotes, definitely needs to parsphrase to the main points of what theyre getting at.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the lead, I am not sure what you are referring to. Do you mean the infobox? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the reception section, From what i can see, due weight is used. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" Reception section is full quotes, definitely needs to parsphrase to the main points of what theyre getting at" Clarify? I do not want to cause the article to not be neutral. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead or Lead paragraph is the opening paragraph, and yes, infobox is part of the opening paragraph. I don't know how reducing quotes is going to affect neutrality. Its going to be a common request in video game GANs and FACs.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing quotes appears to be split consensus, with some telling me that more quotes needed to be added. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed infobox, Paraphrased some quotes, Moved content from legacy to development that matched the description. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they must have meant to add more points from Reviewers, but I'm merely advising to not quote directly. I'll continue to review the article but at this very moment I'm not available. I'll be back in a few hours to continue the review.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the direct quote amount and added more paraphrasing. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Pumpkin Pie I noticed you contributing a lot to the article. Do you have any other suggestions for the GA Review? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PerryPerryD: There was so much to dom One of the firs tthings that was a red flag was inconsistent date format on the references. Some of the references were not even using any template and had bare URLs.

The PSN release dates are not supported in the body of the article. The lead gives the specific days while the article just says they all released in October. There is a lot of information on Vib-Ribbon within the sources provided. A lot of these magazines seem to repeat information off of the Sony Computer Entertainment Europe interview that can be downloaded off Dropbox. (Extremely odd way to access this information)

The 2014 E3 events are not clear. What does it mean to be singled out and why?

One of the key details in development is how they made it possible to play an entire game while not having the game disc in the PS1. Now so far, the edits you've done was add reviews. But the problem is that all the sentences start off the same way: X's reviewer said statement Y. For GAN and FAC, they're going to look for repetition in phrasing and in sentence structure.

When adding reviews, you just don't break down to a final statement, make a paragraph about what reviewers said about the graphics and one about the music and of course the gameplay.

The article is not close to GA quality. That's why I postponed my review, it genuinely seemed like you had more edits to do. It still needs a lot of time to siff through the reviews, siff through the sources already used in the article and the ones not used in the talkpage.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time i've seen a GAR be done this way, But i accept your judgement. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"For GAN and FAC they're..." Im sorry im confused here, Are you NOT the GAN Reviewer? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm explaining to you that reviewers are going to look into repetition in GAN and FAC. That includes me of course.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to mark this GA for a 2nd opinion for more thorough results and any other issues potentially missed. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There's unsourced claims in both Reception and Lead, and a ton of MOS:VG issues. To be honest it should have been failed earlier. -- ferret (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically:

The lede contains an unsourced generalization of support. Typically this is sourced to Metacritic or similar but is missing.
The lede contains an unsourced statement about "the software loads into RAM", which is never mentioned in the prose.
The lede contains an unsource claim of "cult following"
All of the release dates except for the original 1999 JP release are unsourced or fail verification on the sources in use within the release section.
"a living car serving as the player character represented as a living car" repetitive subject.
"Working with the band" is mentioned without the band having been mentioned or introduced.
The first sentence of the reception is again an unsourced generalization of reception with unattributed quotes.
The reception section itself is mostly quote farming.
Reception contains multiple improper capitalizations and sentence fragments.
1. Sentence fragment beginning with capitalized "With Hyper"
2. Gameplay is inappropriately capitalized.
3. There is a sentence fragment beginning with "And" in reception.
4. The reception uses second person pronouns to address the reader.
5. Wireframe is miscapitalized.
The reception says the music design (also improperly capitalized) was "well received among many", which is improper grammar, which is sourced to a single reviewer.
The entire reception section needs copy edited and rewritten.
The long sentence about Astro's Playroom has awkward grammar and needs shortened.

-- ferret (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, PerryPerryD, you haven't made enough edits to even come close to nominating this article. The small amount of edits are great, but you needed to do a lot more work before nomination. I find it really unfair to even keep a review ongoing for needing this much work.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This statement I disagree with. I'm not at all concerned with the amount of editing Perry did to the article. He's done more than enough, this is not a drive by nom. However, the article is not ready.-- ferret (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: Maybe PerryPerryD made enough to claim nomination without consent with any other editor, but not enough for the article to be ready at GAN. So i dont agree with the statement that Perry did "more than enough" and at the same time "not ready". This clearly needs a lot more time in the oven. a lot more. It failed GAlist criteria criteria 1, 2, and 3. And at the pacing we were going by just addressing issues like verifying dates and not using as many quotes, i couldnt spend time just finding flaws. Its better to take our time and just fix the article and wait until we are at least 80% sire its ready.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're going on about. Perry made enough edits to make a nom. He doesn't need any consent or permission from anyone to nom it. But the article is simply not ready and should be failed. These are two independent things. -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well you did repeat what I said, almost verbatim. So you must have an idea of what I'm saying.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

..... You said Perry didn't even have standing to nom. I 100%, strongest possible, disagree with that. Just for the record. As for the rest, go ahead and mark this failed, there's no point in dragging this on. -- ferret (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: I think my comment is being misinterpreted. I'm simply saying the article was nowhere near ready and PerryPerryD needed to do a lot more work before nominating. I am not implying that Perry needs more to "claim" the nomination. And what I find is unfair is trying to prolong a review when simply accepting it failed and adress the issues.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate both of your comments on this, and will continue to try to improve this article based on your suggestions. Thank you. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]