Talk:Jumping Flash!/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: GamerPro64 (talk · contribs) 20:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will reviewing this article soon. GamerPro64 20:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Now for the review proper. I believe that in its current state, this article is not up to GA standards. One issue I have is the reliability on some of the sources used. I have never heard of "Qj.net", "The Next Level", and "AltPop.com" so I'm not entirely sure if they are reliable or not. As well, there are dead links all over the page.

I'll remove those references and find some more reliable ones. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 13:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Qj.net reference as it's not reliable, but 'AltPop' shows every track of the Jumping Flash soundtrack and is the only reference to show the soundtrack. I've kept that one. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My other issue with the article, and probably the biggest issue I have, is the article failing 3.a in the criteria. The "Development" section is only two paragraphs long, with five sentences all together. This game was a Playstation launch title and an early example of 3D platforming and yet all that is talked about is its soundtrack and how it was under the title of "Spring Man" at one point. There has to be more to its development than what is presented.

I have spent nearly an hour trying to find more details on the development but the information is extremely scarce. I'll keep looking and once I have found enough information I'll put it into the article. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 13:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please believe me when I say this, but I have found virtually nothing on its development. The closest relation I could find was that Jumping Flash was carried over from the developer's previous game, Geograph Seal... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I suggest. Maybe ask members of the Video Game project or go to WT:VG for some assistence in finding more about its development. GamerPro64 15:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will give this review 7 days and if all issues are not addressed by then, I will fail it. GamerPro64 20:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find much on it's development. Jaguar is mostly right. I still found this review. But if it's content is added, you probably will regard it as an unreliable source. Should it be added? What do you think? I am happy to help :) Thanks, Shane Cyrus (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64:, I've asked WT:VG for some information on its development but other than Geograph Seal me and Shane can't find anything on its early beta. I'll keep trying, but just letting you know that we haven't found anything to back up its claims yet. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 13:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Shane Cyrus: According to the Sources page, Joystiq is considered to be a situational source. Text next to it says that "it is best to demonstrate the reliability of the individual authors sourced" so maybe check to see if the author of the article is themselves reliable. GamerPro64 02:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only found the author's twitter. Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest any improvements to be made. The close date is coming closer and I don't want this article to fail. Please - Shane Cyrus (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really neither do I. I've asked WT:VG for information on the early development and hopefully that information will come to me in time before this closes. As soon as I get it I'll put it into the article. There's nothing else I can do now but wait. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may comment, failing because a source-related decision hasn't been made despite ongoing work to fix problems seems harsh. I think the seven-day rule is intended to make sure work is being done. Tezero (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64:, I have expanded the development section with all the information I could gather thanks to the help from a few members of WP:VG. I have also attended to your comments regarding the references, if need be I can add more as Thibbs has very kindly given me some reliable sources from 1995. Do you think Jumping Flash meets the criteria now? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna chuck the seven day expiration out for this review as I'm calling for a Second Opinion on this article. Somethings bothering me with the "Plot" and "Gameplay" sections but I can't put my finger on it. Would also be good to get someone else's take on the article as a whole. Until then, with the expansion of information in the "Development" section, it would be beneficial to add some of it in the lead. GamerPro64 00:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't notice this in Gameplay, but Plot has a thin musk of a game's back cover or some other first-party material. Tezero (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: second opinion, per my comments at WT:VG#Jumping_Flash.21_development, the article has completeness concerns for not using the print sources of the era, which will undoubtably say more about the game's reception and development, which is sparse as is czar ♔ 03:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see what was wrong with the plot and gameplay sections, but I done a small copy edit on them anyway. Is there a verdict yet? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My second opinion was that the sections were sparse and could use content from the print (main) sources czar ♔ 18:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64: I've expanded the lead, copy edited the plot, gameplay and development sections and have generally polished most parts of the article. If there are any more concerns I can tackle them? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out if the article meets all the points in the criteria and I believe it meets all but one thing. I mentioned earlier that I questioned the reliability of "The Next Level" and it's still in the article and we've haven't confirmed how reliable it is. Also I want to point out that the 1UP.com, Gamespy, and Gaming-Age references are dead. Has nothing to do with the criteria but would be beneficial to get archive links to them. GamerPro64 02:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, I also have a suspicious that "Drakukls" is also unreliable. GamerPro64 02:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - TheNextLevel turned out to be one huge blog, I wasn't sure if it was reliable so I removed it anyway and replaced it with three more reliable ones. I've also replaced all the dead links with multiple newer ones. As for Drakulus, I thought it wasn't reliable so I've placed them too. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 10:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I checked the sources you added and removed some of them. GameFAQs is unreliable while the Giant Bomb link, while the site is deemed situational, was a wiki which isn't allowed. I'm not sure about the IGN link exactly. Gonna need a second opinion on that. GamerPro64 12:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion here. These IGN pages are generally accepted to be non-editor vetted as community wiki pages or autocompiled from who knows where. Also this 1up page is user-submitted. Both should be removed. Again, print sources are likely where the info's at on these games. czar ♔ 15:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know Giant Bomb was unreliable. I thought IGN was reliable as the sources I chosen were from actual critics. I'll implement the remaining print sources I have into the article. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced every source you mentioned with the last print sources I have. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IGN's generally fine—it's just those wiki pages (like the one I linked above) are user-generated and not vetted czar ♔ 21:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is done I think, I've replaced every reference you mentioned with the print sources. Is there a verdict yet? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right. After much deliberation, I believe that this article meets all requirements for Good Article status and will close this review as Passing. If anyone objects to this decision, they can take the article to Good Article reassessment. GamerPro64 23:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]