[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:The Great Giana Sisters/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: RFNirmala (talk · contribs) 05:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! My second GA review. Will complete the table in around 2 days.

Ping me if I'm inactive (and I'll let another reviewer decide on the verdict, since I might be on a wikibreak this month.

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Moved to a new section. See "Grammar and prose points".

Reception can be organized better by topic sentences (for the first and second paragrph).

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Not a major issue, I will raise or edit some minor points throughout the review.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. If there are, search for URLs on your sources (such as the Internet Archive). I don't require this, although this would make spotchecking faster and sources more accessible.
  • I'm a bit back and forth on this. While as you stated, some sources are on the Archive.org, I'm not sure about the validity of some being there. As I wouldn't link to a video game rom or something on similar shaking ground, I feel anyone who wants to try and find these online, could easily do so, even if it is inconvenient. I hope that is ok. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. My concern was convenience for lay readers, since I took some time in finding the scans in the Internet Archive. The scans I have added seem valid, I'll remove them if found otherwise. This is over-the-top and optional, but are the Time War (1987a,b,c) refs from a C64 game manual or box? I didn't see the text in gameplay videos. RFNirmala (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • No totally, I understand that too and its definitely useful to have such links for that reason. That's why I'm back and forth on the idea. If there are any that still link to them, I'm totally content to either leave them in or not as the two sides are both very useful and valid reasons.
      • So the instructions are from the manual. The version I've played of the game had these instructions in the intro, but looking at footage, these may have been added by someone who cracked the game. The manual has them. I've since changed them to reflect the manual. Good catch! Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Appropriately sourced. On hold while article is being improved.
2c. it contains no original research. No original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No major issue so far.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The article does cover the main aspects of the game. Details on the background and release (e.g. where in Europe, other ports) may be included.
I've expanded a bit on the background (who are Time Warp and Rainbow Arts for example). Generally, release information for video games is hard to come by. To paraphrase the article I worked on Big Apple Rappin', "Small [companies] run by independent entrepreneurs hustling to make a buck, don't keep detailed documentation on the [content] they release." I feel this can be applied here. Either way, with the previous edits, I've added material that suggest it was released at least in Germany earlier than the UK release, so people can infer this information from the article, but as for specifics, I do not think I'll be able to hunt up anything too specific. To put this into similar terms, there is no confirmed release date for Super Mario Bros. in the United States on the Super Mario Bros. article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that release dates are hard to find, so I'm okay with that. Still, I'd love to know other territories in Europe where the Giana Sisters was released (ofc, with reliable sources). RFNirmala (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I can find anything, I'll add it. Its hard to tell especially for this game as its been pulled from the market, but at least Germany and and least the UK for sure. Again, I don't even know if that MSX version is legitimate, but sources claim it to be I have my personal doubts. (To clarify, heres the cover for the MSX version. I know some early computer games have some dodgy box art, but this looks very home made. You can see its packaging here, this ranges from the liner notes that are going into some serious Nintendo-bashing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC) )[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). No major issue so far.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. At first glance, "Reception" might need work. Will check this deeper Neutrality isn't an issue, "Reception" just needs organization.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Will put this on hold while improving article's content and organization., but there's easily no edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Non-free media and use rationales provided in respective images. No issue so far.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. I recommend adding alt captions for the British art cover. I would almost say you should add an alt image for the German cover art, but it would be only for describing Giana's appearance (blonde, red shirt...) See MOS:ALT. Looks good.

I recommend adding a sample of the soundtrack to show its distinction from Super Mario.

7. Overall assessment.

Some things to add in the article content:

  • How long did development take place? How long was it sold in the UK before being pulled out from stores, or receiving the letter from Nintendo? Jones, Darran (2008) has content that can be added, but search for other sources to support this.
    • I've found a source more directly related to the production on how long the game was available. I know the Jones source states it was out for about a week (or something to that effect) in the UK Retro Gamer. I can't really tell for sure if Jones is being specific with these dates or he's just trying to say that as sort of a hyperbole as he does not give dates. If you think it should be included, I'm happy to do it, but these are just my concerns. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darran also included the developer's experiences of constantly revising the game after "hassle from management". You may consider adding that to the development's 'story'
  • You may expand descriptions of the enemies. "Giant ants" is good, but may you give examples of "cute enemies"? As I mentioned in the table, describing Giana and her sister may also be an option.
    • There isn't that much to say about them I don't think. I took out the term cute as that might be too much of a description borrowed from the Retro Gamer source. I could find some potentially describing the enemies, but it may be out of context for the comparison to the Super Mario Bros. enemies, which is the main key point of the sentence here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Super Mario Bros. doesn't have prose on Mario and Luigi being red and green, so I'm okay without descriptions of the sisters. You can check SMB's gameplay to connect how the Great Giana Sisters level and gameplay is similar (e.g. underwater enemies, how Giana defeats enemies...) RFNirmala (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can probably dig up sources on how they attack enemies, is it appropriate in the gameplay section though to compare how that gameplay is similar to Super Mario Bros. or unique to the game? Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to make a list on similarities and differences in the article, so there should be no sentence/paragraph explicitly stating differences in gameplay. There are already examples on /* Background and development */, which can be expanded if there are reliable sources on it. By the way, I only realized there aren't any underwater enemies in the game. RFNirmala (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I think there are only underground and cave enemies. I've added a bit on how to attack enemies and the kind of monsters you meet. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caoili, Eric (November 9, 2009) and Loguidice, Bill aren't cited in the article, but are present in the sources list.
    • Embarrassing spelling error aside, I've removed this citation. I think I was using it as a temp source for something, but removed it as I found that clarified information better as I went along. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the sources deviate from the name "Giana". Is it okay if you clarify this on the article? One-sentence paragraphs can be resolved by organizing the article. Organize /* Reception */ too by adding topic sentences and reviews according to their content points by WP:VG/REC. RFNirmala (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a clarification about the spelling of "Giana/Gianna" which I think does the job. I'll try to tackle the review later as that seems to be a more thorough issue that requires a bit more thought. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the note. Take your time for the Reception. Is there a reliable source/game version on "Gianni"? Bielby, Matt (1988) only refers to it as so, and I'm not sure if that itself can be reliable, since they might've made errors in writing (e.g. assuming they're Italians). If none, I'm okay with just Gianna, which is reflected in a game port. RFNirmala (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not really cited anywhere (I swear I read it somewhere, but can't find the source) that in the opening scrawl where the games title is written in blocks, Giana is spelled "Gianna" in a few versions, including C64 one. I tried to do a bit of a copy edit of the review, but I feel like it is mostly doing the points from the content. I believe you are on a wikiholiday, but I was told to ping you when I was done addressing points, so at this point, I'll let you give you a @RFNirmala: as requested. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we can place it in the article, is there a sentence review on anything unique on the MSX port?RFNirmala (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Retro Gamer may have said something unique about the MSX port, but this port seems very obscure. I found in Dutch which is complicated to sort out as they are reviewing the game so late, they seem to be a bit confused by its history. I'm even questioning if its an official port, but that's just my own judgement, I have nothing to back that up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      (Reply to your message at 3a) If we don't have evidence it's indeed "official", which I'm also leaning into (basing on the game's packaging, and its release in 1993), we can add a disclaimer stating that it could be an unofficial port, e.g. an instance on "piracy and emulation", which I found helpful in elaborating content. Removing it might be inconvenient in clarifying some information for lay readers. RFNirmala (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry to clarify, this is all just original research on my own part. It seems to have gotten a release and seems to have been reviewed in video game review magazines. I don't think we should be applying that based on our hunches without someone who has actually discussed it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar and prose points

[edit]
  • Wikilink what a "lolly" is, or change word to "candy", depending on the context of the source.
  • After coming third in a 1986 contest for a German magazine called 64'er..." you may add a few words what the contest was about.
  • "In the 1970s and early 1980s, video game clones of popular arcades were rampant, and this growth of clones were followed on home computers."
  • "The game is a platform game, where the player controls either Giana in single player mode, or in two-player mode, switches between Giana and Maria." The underlined phrase can be connected better. You can say "The platform game right away" instead of repeating the first sentence in the lead.
  • Quotation mark the word "twee" if it's in the original article.
    • Hi. I've tried to address the five issues above. The in-game text/instructions specifically says "lolly". The are indeed lollipops, so I've wikilinked the term to no have some unfortunate misunderstanding. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As well as Trenz, who created the game's visuals and high score programming, the developers included Gessert, who developed the rest of the code, and Chris Huelsbeck who wrote the score." We can make this more concise e.g. "The game developers included..."
    Thanks! This sentence is good, and I can even say the same for the paragraph. I also did some copy editing, e.g. from "level-design" to "level design". Keep watch for such cases, and footnote numbers not sorted ascending. I have no problem so far with interchanging "box art" and "cover art".
    You can also check on Reception, especially on the 1st and 2nd paragraph, which fluctuates between praise and criticism. As I mentioned, topic sentences and thematic organization are good approaches.
    • In the 3rd paragraph (which I interpret to be about Giana on other platforms), does Dillion (1988) refer to the game itself, or through a particular port?
    • "The Great Giana Sisters received a sequel in 1989 with Hard'n'Heavy for the Commodore 64, Atari ST, and Amiga." I can't improve the prose here, focusing on the "with". I recommend "The Great Giana Sisters received a sequel in 1989, Hard'n'Heavy, for...", which you can revise, since I have some doubt with the appositive.
    RFNirmala (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


RFNirmala (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing Reception

[edit]

I inferred that the "The reviewers generally praised the game, while finding it also lacking colour and that it ran slower than the Commodore 64 original." sentence refers to the ZX Spectrum. Wanted to let you know if I made a mistake.

You are correct. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Great_Giana_Sisters/GA1&oldid=1264148341"