Talk:Donkey Kong 64/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DK..... Donkey Kong..... DK..... Donkey Kong is here (at GAN)! It might take some time to look through, but I'm not gonna miss the opportunity to review this! Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some beginning thoughts.....

Infobox

While I don't have access to the Electronic Gaming Monthly citation, AllGame says November 23rd instead of 22nd, and I don't see how it suggests this date was specifically for North America

And IGN says 22 and GameSpot says 24. (I think that is evidence enough that the specificity of the release date is both unimportant and indeterminate...) I'd go with EGM and drop AllGame, personally. The direct quote is, "... on Nov. 22 Donkey Kong will be back on store shelves with a vengeance ..." I'd preferably drop the date and just say "Late November 1999", because I don't think the specificity of the date matters. Retromags has the EGM. czar 05:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"rescue his kidnapped friends"..... it might also be worth naming these characters here and noting here how you can play as each after rescuing them, especially when the lead also says "five playable Kong characters"
"Donkey Kong Country" in plaintext links to the original game, and I think you meant Donkey Kong Country (series) here
Don't use pipes to hide away "Tooie" from Banjo-Tooie per WP:SPECIFICLINK and WP:NOPIPE
For "Reviewers noted the game's exceptional size and length, and criticized its emphasis on item collection and backtracking", I'd use "but" in place of "and" for "and criticized" as well as "praised" instead of noted", and "exceptional" doesn't seem neutral

I'll be back with more later, and might do this section-by-section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left the character-specific in their own section rather than muddle the two together. I linked DKC series for you, but I don't see how that article is going to stand on its own (I think it'll be merged either back into DKC or into the DK series). The piping on Tooie is fine—the sources refer to the group as the "Banjo group" and specifically in reference to having finished Banjo-Tooie. Since there is no page for "Banjo group", I think the link to Tooie instead of Kazooie is appropriate and sufficiently specific as written. I think "exceptional" is a valid paraphrase of the sources—happy to provide text access if you can't access any of the refs. It's also tricky because the size was not always (or even mostly?) cited as a positive. (Note that the size is a criticism in the retrospective reviews but given the feeble 90s games press, I imagine they didn't want to pick a fight with Rare. Well, at least all but GameFan.) In any event, that's why I used "noted" instead of "praised" and why I used that conjunction rather than phrasing them as opposites. Thanks for taking a look! czar 05:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

I'm not sure "traditional" from "traditional storyline" is really needed, even if this game's premise is similar to the DKC predecessors
While the IGN citation used supports starting as DK himself, I don't see any mention in that of a tutorial, but that can be found in Nintendo Life. IGN also doesn't mention backtracking, and the "Similar to gameplay in other games by Rare" bit isn't really needed anyway. I could be missing something, but I don't see anything in it suggesting "a specific character ability might be necessary for solving a puzzle" either.

From IGN, the tutorial is a paraphrase of "Players begin the game as Donkey in a training sub-level". Backtracking is a paraphrase of "The game strictly follows the Rare philosophy to extend replay value forever: players can come to an area, but they can't open it yet. ... What we mean by this is that the game shows players what is possible, but doesn't let them achieve any of it until they have first gained certain abilities or passed specific goals." For specific character backtracking, "Some doors can only be opened by playing Diddy's guitar, while others need Donkey Kong's coconuts." (All in all, they see it as a major element of the game.)

My bad; I was able to connect some paraphrasing, but not all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure about the tone of "unique" in "unique abilities"; it would probably be better to say something like "individual" when this applies to specific characters
"Since these abilities outnumber the quantity of face buttons on the controller" is a bit much

I somewhat agree—I weigh whether reviewer comments are still relevant when they appear dated. For instance, the comment on what is usual for Rare doesn't hold through to today, but was mentioned by the review because it sets up context for understanding the game/work. The comment about the controls might seem superfluous today, the same way that a 1980s review might explain that the player needs to push a button to make an on-screen rocket ship shoot a laser, but I think it also provides context for a general audience that might not be familiar with how controls work, or who are reading about games from this era.

I would include names for Rambi the Rhino and En Guarde the swordfish

Linked

I meant stating what their names are within the article Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the IGN ref, AllGame doesn't mention Rumble Pak, but does mention how only specific characters can solve certain puzzles

AllGame has separate Overview and Review pages—it's the former that mentions the Rumble Pak

"losing all their lives" from "damage other players before losing all of their own lives" seems somewhat redundant when you mention damaging others; let's just go with something like "defeat other players"

Didn't notice that; thanks for pointing it out. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good section overall. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, commented above czar 05:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Development

If also including release time details here, then I'd call this "Development and release". Otherwise, release info can be moved to "Reception" and that could be renamed "Release and reception".

"Development" automatically includes "Release"—I wouldn't retitle the section unless it became weighted equal parts Dev & Release, which I don't think it is

Can something more definitive than "around 1995" be found for when work began?

@Electroguv, recently added this and the one below. Would you be able to upload a scan for us to verify? You can email it to me, if you prefer. On something more definitive, it's pretty rare to get development timeframe info at all...

Whenever such info is available, though, it's definitely worth including. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the source and it doesn't appear to verify anything that Electroguv added... reverting now czar 20:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"transpired secretly" from "the project transpired secretly" reads awkwardly; I'd go with "was kept a secret"
When did work on the game finish?

The game's release is at the end of the second paragraph

If you're suggesting 1997 or 1999, then I'd try to find something stating when Rare finished the project Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I used every extant source. Few articles note when development "ends"—it ends when the game is released czar 04:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three IGN citations for 1999 Electronic Entertainment Expo premiere seems excessive; just one or maybe two is enough
What was the other game that needed an N64 Expansion Pak?

Majora's Mask (it's in the source)

In that case, I would mention it by name Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need for that—it's trivia outside the scope of the article czar 04:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"too noted" → "also noted"
Not sure it's necessary to mention David Wise here when he didn't make the music
I'm pretty sure "DK Rap" should be in quotation marks when it's the name of a song

I'd say its use is closer to a proper noun—the Rap about DK—than a song title, personally...

Another section done..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commented above and rest should be resolved czar 05:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

It's probably worth including the GameRankings score
If talking about sales here (which pertains to release), then see my above comment on having release info in separate sections
Is it known how many copies the game sold during the 1999 or 2000 holiday seasons?
It doesn't really make sense to say the game won "several annual awards" and only include one example; I'd also mention Best Graphics, Best Music, Best N64 Game, and Best Sound
"nominated for Game of the Year and Console Game of the Year in the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences' 2000 Interactive Achievement Awards"..... what game ended up winning?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see where GamePro calls this an "editor's choice", and this bit seems like it could use more elaboration
Don't italicize IGN; it isn't a print publication
"put it" → "called it"
"didn't" → "did not" per WP:CONTRACTIONS
"Ocarina of Time" was already linked before and doesn't need to be linked here again per WP:OVERLINK
"forthrightly" is a bit much
The tone of "Backtracking could be reduced, for example, if the player could switch between characters at any time" reads like it came from a game review, so let's try something like "suggested backtracking could be reduced by allowing players to switch between characters at any time"
Having the 30 hour estimate in the same sentence as "IGN called it Rare's War and Peace" gives the misleading impression that this was IGN's guess; let's fix that accordingly by separating the sentences.
"But between a slow running speed and camera issues" is a fragment; never start a sentence with any of the words from FANBOYS (For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, So)
"felt that the game's visuals were only marginally—if at all—better than its contemporaries" is a mouthful; try "did not feel the game's visuals were much better than its contemporaries"
"In fact" isn't really appropriate tone
"pretty" and "prettiest" should be in quotation marks since these tend not to be encyclopedic outside of quotes
"the song was 'loved by some, loathed by others', as was the game itself" reads awkwardly; go with "the game itself and song were 'loved by some, loathed by others'"
"did it best, as the best" doesn't read very well, just say "was the best"

More to come..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is to not use GameRankings unless it adds value atop or in the absence of Metacritic. If I had any more info on sales, I would have included it, but we're lucky to have any sales figures at all. I don't think the Nintendo Power awards need to be any more specific—they were reader awards and the only one that really mattered was the overall award. If readers want to know more, they can follow the citation. Re: GamePro, see the icon in the upper-right corner. Nothing wrong with starting a sentence with any of those FANBOYS. I appreciate the intent of some of these other grammatical/tone points, but I disagree with some of them and in any event, they're outside the scope of the GA review/criteria. Some of the suggestions change the validity of the sources, so leaving as is. Some of the above was answered in another section of the review. czar 05:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

"Legacy" seems like a misleading description given the predominantly negative comments here; a better title would be "Impact"
"The indie developer behind A Hat in Time, a spiritual successor to Banjo-Kazooie" is too much; just say "The indie developer Jonas Kaerlev"
the bit on "worthy of being remade for Nintendo's 3DS handheld console" seems like it belongs more in the "Reception" section
"the DK Rap, while unfashionable at first, was enjoying a resurgence in popularity"...... try "the DK rap was gaining popularity" and then add a quote

I'll finish with the citations later..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Legacy" is the standard heading. I'm not seeing why "Legacy" would necessarily imply only positive comments. "The indie developer Jonas Kaerlev" doesn't work for me. Why should the reader care about Kaerlev's opinion? Because of his qualification as the designer behind a spiritual successor. Without that information, the statement has little use. czar 04:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Don't italicize MetaCritic, GameSpot, IGN, Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences, or AllGame because they aren't print publications or even online magazines/newspapers
"N64 Magazine" → NGC Magazine

It was N64 Mag at the time—changing it to its later title is an anachronism

I'm not so sure if "Square Enix Music Online" should have italics
Is "Daily Radar" a good source? I can't find anything on it in WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources.

(Daily Radar) Wouldn't have used it if I didn't at least minimally think so. It's not the best, but it was published by Future and is the site that became GamesRadar

"GamesRadar" is missing the + for GamesRadar+, and it shouldn't be italicized

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized" As for the citation template, the |work= parameter is for the publication's title, which means that all blogs are creative works in our citation template. |publisher= is really designed for book publishers, paired with |location=. (I.e., WPVG does all kinds of excessive/wrong citation formatting.) czar 05:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't feel like using "publisher" to prevent automatic italics, then you could actually use italics text within the "work" parameter to cancel out the field's italicization. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point: the website/work field is supposed to be italicized, which is why it's done by default. Using quotation marks to jury-rig the reverse italics would make the CS1 template maintainers cringe... czar 04:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I don't see how including a fansite (MarioWiki) is appropriate here

I'm certainly not a stalwart for open wiki external links, but the Super Mario wiki is stable enough to pass the ext link guidelines. It provides minutiae on plot, controls, gameplay, that could interest readers but is out of our scope. So while I think it should stay, I don't feel strongly. czar 05:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it at least isn't being used as an in-text citation, which I certainly wouldn't approve of Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Prose: Could be better, but no major problems
Referencing: One questionable source
Coverage: A few points could use some elaboration while others could be reduced/removed
Neutrality: Mostly good
Stability: Nothing of concern
Media: I'm not sure if File:Dk64 jungle.jpg is particularly beneficial, but that and File:DonkeyKong64CoverArt.jpg would benefit from using URLs for image locations either way
Verdict: Placing this on hold for seven days. While some work is needed, I'm sure it can be done within that time period. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

I'm very sorry, but the seven day hold has expired and not all of my concerns have been resolved. In particular, nothing in "reception" or "legacy" was addressed. Failing this as a result. It can be renominated after the rest of my comments are addressed. Better luck next time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perplexed why you would close the review when you saw that the edits were in progress—especially when the remaining "concerns" are so minor as to not be hits on the GA criteria... "Better luck"? czar 04:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS, I've addressed the remainder of your concerns. Would you prefer to reopen the review or for me to renominate it? czar 05:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it's probably better to renominate and have a fresh pair of eyes examine the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very disappointed. This is a massive waste of time for everyone involved. There's nothing left to fix from your review. czar 06:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]