Jump to content

Talk:Monaco GP (video game)

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Monaco GP (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 00:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll find time for this one. More comments coming soon. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gameplay
  • "Played from an overhead perspective,[2] in Monaco GP, the main objective of the game is to race against a timer " -> "Monaco is a racing game played from an overhead perspective,[2] where the main objective is to finish a course before time runs out."
  • "include puddles to avoid, bridges where the road narrows further, " -> "puddles, narrow bridges,"
  • "Pro Monaco GP" -> this new game shows up without context. Maybe clarify this is a later release? Or maybe this makes more sense after the part about multiple arcade cabinet formats.
  • "Over 100 chips across two circuit boards operate the game" -> "the game is operated by over 100 chips across two circuit boards"
  • "Sprites and other images such as the cars and "game over" message are stored in small custom read-only memory (ROM) chips." -> "Images are stored in small custom read-only memory (ROM) chips, including sprites, cars, and the "game over" message."
  • Organization
  • The technical aspects should have its own subsection for development. Is there any way to expand on the development a bit, with who developed it, and how the development generally went?
  • I'm going to disagree with this one because there's simply not enough content to warrant a separate section here, and I oppose creating tiny sections simply for the sake of division as being unengaging prose. I'll elaborate a little further on the sourcing further below.
  • Perhaps add the release information to the new development section. The release becomes the end of the development process.
  • Reception
  • The reaction to its debut can remain here.
  • The rest of the reception is written very well. Good job.
  • Sequels and re-releases
  • Is there really no legacy for this historic game?
  • This section is also generally well written.
The article is well-written on the whole, but I'm worried it is a little thin to pass GA. I just want to be sure this passes the broadness criteria at GA, that "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". Was it really hard to find sources for this? Shooterwalker (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shooterwalker, please allow me a few days to get back to this. My family seems to have been struck by the flu and a lot of my available time right now is going to caring for them. I should hopefully be able to look at this within the week. Red Phoenix talk 14:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response and take your time. It's just that time of year. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so let's talk sourcing and thinness - that it was so thin is why this article pretty much sat for a year or two after I worked on improving it before I brought it here. I searched periodically over the course of the last couple of years for more, and it simply doesn't appear to exist. My guess is the biggest limitation and reason for this is because of the game's release in 1979, before the gaming press or journalistic interest in video games really took off - I mean, we're talking two years after the release of the Atari 2600 and four before the video game crash of 1983. While it is an influential Sega game, there are so many more from this time period that have gained more attention for other reasons - 1979's Head On (video game) and 1981's Turbo (video game) are remembered for being inspiration for Pac-Man and the game that was beat out by Pole Position (video game), for instance. Then Sega became a victim of the arcade crash of 1982, just before the consoles crashed, and the arcade development division of Sega changed greatly with all of the notable names of the division coming in after that, and they're the people whose works have drawn all the historical coverage (i.e. Yu Suzuki, Toshihiro Nagoshi, Tetsuya Mizuguchi, etc.)
Quite frankly, even the reliable sources for the game are a little bit of fluff at times - Horowitz's section for Monaco GP in his book is probably the most disappointing of any of the 62 games he covers for its stunning lack of depth, and many of his sections for other games have highly detailed development information that just doesn't exist here, for a game before the common era of developer credits. Even I see through that and had no desire to add fluff to this encyclopedic article.
I finally submitted this for GA because it's everything I could find to put into it. It's the best assemblage of sources available in the English language on the internet, with some sources from foreign languages as well. If that's not enough, in this case I do understand because that was my concern as well, but that would also mean the subject doesn't carry enough reliable sourcing in materials that exist in any accessible fashion. I'll let you determine if you feel it meets the broadness criterion or not. Red Phoenix talk 17:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to believe you made a good effort to build out the development section. The broadness requirement is based on what information is available and I am persuaded that you've found whatever research exists. I re-organized the sections a bit but feel free to make further edits. Congratulations on another GA. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Red Phoenix (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 16:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I think that ALT1 is more interesting to me personally since being 1st in something is more interesting than being 3rd in something, but that is also US-centric and there's no shortage of US-centric hooks on DYK, so I think for the sake of variety ALT0 should be used. Also, for those who would like to verify the first hook and don't speak Japanese (not that I do with any confidence) the important part is the title at the top of the two pages, which includes text along the right side of page 2. That side text is the important part, where 「モナコ」 (Monaco) is found. The title says Invaders is in first place followed by Galaxian and then Monaco. - Aoidh (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the lack of location does make it kind of confusing on what the video game earnings report are. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's location-agnostic and I don't object to it, but it's not my favorite of the three. If viewed in a bubble without taking the overall state of DYK into consideration I'd say ALT1 would be the one I'd pick but I recognize that people piecing together the queues take the overall picture into consideration. - Aoidh (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monaco_GP_(video_game)&oldid=1204047643"