Talk:ToeJam & Earl III: Mission to Earth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleToeJam & Earl III: Mission to Earth has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 7, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
November 4, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:ToeJam & Earl III: Mission to Earth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    See below
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    See below
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    See below
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    See below
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    See below
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Lead
  • Missing some key details here, like release regions and exact release date. Also, there’s some confusion about the genre: the text says it’s an action game, the infobox says platformer. The text should also include the names of the developers and publisher.
    • IGN says 22 Oct, GameSpot says 23. This suggests it was released in UK/Europe on 7 March 2003 (CVG and the Guardian reviewed it around Feb-Mar 2003) but this isn't made explicit. bridies (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Primary” may be a better word than ultimate” here.
  • ”Other reviewers derided the graphics and attempted humor as poor…” – Redundant, derision indicates that the reviewers thought it was poor. Also, “attempted” is probably incorrect, as there is humor in the game (even though it seems it was bad).
Gameplay
  • This game is recent enough to warrant having separate sections for Gameplay and Plot. The plot section needs to explain in detail about the protagonists, especially ToeJam & Earl. Latisha needs to be explained, as does the Funkapotamus and the Anti-Funk. The game probably has enough of a storyline to warrant a plot summary, even if it’s short. There's no information about the game's setting except that it's on Earth. Where on Earth?
  • There’s little information about how the game is actually played. This is where we need more info on whether the game is an action game or platformer of mix of both. How do the heroes battle enemies? Can the player decide which of the three aliens is controlled at any given time? What do the other two do when one is being controlled? Do the protagonists have weapons or special powers, or qualities that differ between them? Funk-Fu and Funk Notes are mentioned, but how do they work? What do the power-ups do? What’s the multiplayer about? The box says it’s Xbox Live compatible, should that be explained?
  • The image here is great, but the caption should add a little more detail. What's the Earthling in the screen with ToeJam? Is the game in two-player mode? What's the number (-35) mean where ToeJam's head should be on the HUD?
Development
  • ” GT Interactive's restructuring and the Nintendo 64's declining commercial performance were also felt to be factors by commentators.” – This sentence is interesting but vague, could it be expanded?
Reception
  • This section needs expansion. It’s a relatively recent game, many more reviews can be found. Despite the game’s focus on music as a plot device, for example, there is really only one sentence here about audio.
  • In order to make the text of the reviews less technical and more focused on prose, there should be an infobox with scores in it.

This article has been placed on hold. Is 11 sources enough to make a game this recent comprehensive? I have to believe there’s a lot more info out there. Expanding the gameplay and reception sections and creating a plot section will uncover a lot more information. The article will be on hold for a week or until all issues have been addressed. Good luck! Vantine84 (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been failed because of lack of progress on the items identified above. Vantine84 (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up[edit]

Stuff fixed from the above review:

  • The article now has both the North American and European release dates. Despite the two reviews from Australian publications, there does not appear to have been a release in Australia, nor Japan. See this discussion.
  • The infobox now lists all the genres mentioned in the reviews.
  • Developers and publishers mentioned in the lead.
  • All the plot, such as there is, is discussed in the synopsis section barring the ending (which would be desirable but not essential for GA). Some commentary on Latisha by third party publications has been added, but there is not really substantive coverage on either the plot or characters in third party criticism.
  • "Where on Earth?" has been clarified in the prose.
  • Gameplay information has been expanded.
  • The caption is fine (see review above). The game is clearly in 2-player mode; commenting upon the name of the Earthling would be pushing WP:V; numbers on the HUD is extraneous in-game detail.
  • The "vague" sentence in the development section (see review above) cannot be expanded upon because that's all the sources say.
  • Reception section has been expanded. Scores moved from prose to an infobox. bridies (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:ToeJam & Earl III: Mission to Earth/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Expect my full review of this article in a day or two. Until then, you should check out the game's two print reviews at the Online print archive, and this Xbox Nation Magazine interview with Greg Johnson. They should all improve the article. One other thing: you might remove the GameZone and TeamXbox reviews, since GameZone can be replaced with the more reliable reviews above, and TeamXbox is basically IGN. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Hold

Review:

  • I said before that GameZone could be replaced by the above sources, but I see now that you are using the review as a reference throughout the article. I recommend minimizing its use, if possible, but keeping it for facts stated nowhere else.
  • The biggest problem is the prose, which is consistently rough. At Wikipedia:Good article nominations, it says that reviewers are encouraged to contribute to the article; therefore, I'll copyedit it for you, as I did with ToeJam & Earl.
  • The first paragraph of Gameplay would be better suited for a "Synopsis"-type section, as you did with ToeJam & Earl. In such a section, be sure to mention the game's ending, and elaborate further on its plot setup, if possible.
    I'm afraid I don't know what happens in the end and it's not available on Youtube or any where else I can find. It would be nice to have it but not essential for GA in my opinion. There doesn't seem to be much plot in general other than the opening cut scene detailing the premise. The GameSpot review has a summary. bridies (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're probably right. You'll need to get your hands on that information if you plan on FAC, but it should be fine for a GA. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article contains many quotes that should be paraphrased. Worst offenders: "demented chicken", "psycho cheerleaders" and "ninja rabbits"; "rumors buzzed all throughout the Saturn era of a new TJ&E"; "struck a deal"; "all the same stuff but just better graphics"; "too old school". Also, quotation marks are used in cases where they are simply unnecessary, even without paraphrasing. Examples: "Anti-Funk", "hubs", "mixed reviews". You should also paraphrase as many quotes in Reception as possible.
    To be honest I'm not sure how to paraphrase "demented chicken", "psycho cheerleaders" and "ninja rabbits" without losing some of intended tone of the original prose... bridies (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. There was a similar problem with ToeJam & Earl. I'll paraphrase "ninja rabbits" to "rabbit ninja" (since "ninja" is both singular and plural) during the copyedit, and drop the issue other than that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any more information available about Latisha's creation? "Johnson and Voorsanger indicated the development of a new character with a working title of ToeJam, Earl, and Latisha" is just not enough detail.
    I've added some more development information from the Xbox Nation interview, including a snippet about Latisha. In general though, there really doesn't seem to be much and critics were very indifferent to her. EGM for example says: "The new playable character, Latisha, is stereotypical and unnecessary (the game is ToeJam & Earl, remember?)". bridies (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If there isn't anything to add, then I can't ask for it. The new piece of information about her voice actress fleshes it out a little, anyway. If you could also include a mention of who they went with instead, that'd be great. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Genevieve Goings - Richfife (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Urk! Sherrie Jackson. Goings did all the other female voices, Jackson did Latisha. My bad. - Richfife (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Reception sections will need a few changes. To start with, the GameZone and Eurogamer reviews are given too much weight; they both get a half-paragraph of coverage. Cut down on those, and replace TeamXbox with the more notable Official Xbox Magazine review (available here), since both are positive. Also, since 1up's review is only used as a review score, and EGM, OXM and GameNOW are all Ziff Davis magazines anyway, remove it. GameNOW can replace it as a positive review score, but make sure to also give it some prose coverage. For video game (rather than computer game) articles, I consider Electronic Gaming Monthly and Game Informer to be the most important review sources, and rarely support articles that do not include one or both. I linked to EGM above, but you'll have to get Game Informer from the Reference library. Metacritic claims that the review appears in GI's November 2002 issue; three people have access to this issue. Mitaphane often takes awhile to respond, so I recommend trying the other two first.
    Added the Game Informer and EGM reviews. I've requested the Official Xbox Magazine review but no reply as yet. bridies (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Reception section is looking good; once OXM is in there, it'll be perfect. I'll get to a copyedit of the entire article tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extra note: The box shot's rationale needs to be improved, and the image reduced in size.

Reviewer: JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Box art's fair use has been improved but someone needs to re-upload it to a size somewhere between 250px-300px. Salavat (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've passed the article. The two remaining points (OXM review, mention of final Latisha voice actress) aren't big enough to keep the article back. I assume that you'll add them, anyway, when you get your hands on the information. Keep up the good work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on ToeJam & Earl III: Mission to Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on ToeJam & Earl III: Mission to Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ToeJam_%26_Earl_III:_Mission_to_Earth&oldid=1205720416"