Talk:Planet of the Apes (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Manfred von Karma (talk · contribs) 10:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! My name is Manfred von Karma, and I will be reviewing the article Planet of the Apes (video game). To clarify, the version of Planet of the Apes (video game) I am reviewing is the revision as of this edit by an IP user. This review is a criteria-by-criteria evaluation of the article.

Props to the major contributors and the nominator of this article. Your efforts are commended here on Wikipedia.

Immediate failures test

From what I can see here, the article does not immediately fail. It is feasibly nominated, does not contain copyrighted material, does not have outstanding editor's notes that need to be fulfilled and the article lacks constant vandalism.

Planet of the Apes (video game) Vs. Stature of writing (Cr1)

The following points are some gripes I have with the grammatical Cr1 judging points;

Lines 2 & 3 in ⇒Gameplay, STRUCTURE issue :: "(...) he utilizes unarmed hand-to-hand combat (...)" has minor issues. A sentence more similar to "John can attack by using firearms, crossbows, knives, or by utilizing hand-to-hand combat" reads better.
Line 3 in ⇒Gameplay, STRUCTURE issue :: Substitute "such as" with "including".
Line 4 in ⇒Gameplay, STRUCTURE issue :: See Cr3 evaluation.
Line 5 in ⇒Gameplay, STRUCTURE issue :: Substitute "like" with "such as".
Line 5 in ⇒Gameplay, STRUCTURE issue :: Substitute "unlock" with "access" (See: WP:VGG, Gaming jargon section).
Title of ⇒Synopsis, MISC. issue :: Substitute "Synopsis" with "Plot" (See: WP:VGG, Organization section and MoS).
Line 10 in ⇒Synopsis, GRAMMAR issue :: Substitute the semicolon with "but" and substitute the existing "but" with "and" for the purpose of readability and general grammar.
Line 13 in ⇒Development, FLOW issue :: Sentence makes zero sense; there are tense issues, clashing information and other flow issues.
Line 3 in ⇒Reception, STRUCTURE issue :: Substitute "play" with "gameplay".

These are all quite minor gripes, but they add up, so for now, the stature of writing in the article does not pass its corresponding criteria.

Planet of the Apes (video game) Vs. Verifiability of writing (Cr2)

The ideas presented in this article are all fact, and the article contains no original research. Use of references, however small in quantity, are widespread and well-used throughout the article, and are all from valid sources.

Planet of the Apes (video game) Vs. Inclusivity of writing (Cr3)

This article falls short in the Gameplay section. The Gameplay section of an article should be a video game-based article's meat, yet the quantity of the section in this article is way too small to even consider this criteria being fulfilled. Some things you could add are:

More about the stealth mechanics
More about the Game Boy and Game Boy Advance versions of the game [!]
More about the mechanics of the PlayStation and Windows versions of the game

In short, the article needs to be broadened, especially because this article focuses on two games.

Planet of the Apes (video game) Vs. Position of writing (Cr4)

This article has a 100% neutral outlook, which would fulfil this criteria's requirements.

Planet of the Apes (video game) Vs. Stability of writing (Cr5)

This article gets the vandal status of NONE because there is minimal traffic and zero history of vandalism. Thus, this article needs no protection and passes the requirements of criteria the fifth.

Planet of the Apes (video game) Vs. Visual components of writing (Cr6)

The box art provided is the most widespread, but there is no clarification as to which box art it is. The copyright details of the image used here are properly filled out. This article lacks a gameplay screenshot, which is why this criteria fails.

Issue summary

Plenty of MoS-related issues. Gameplay section needs serious expansion. Another image is required.

At a glance

Final verdict

As this article fails one or more criteria, this article can not become a Good Article. Thus, I will put this article on hold () for now, specifically for seven days. If everything is not fixed, I will be forced to close this nomination. Don't fret though: you can always re-nominate an article when you think everything has improved. If you have problems with this review, you have a dispute with one of my claims, want to seek advice or require my contact for anything else, you can visit me on my talk page. Manfred (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of 18 May, the nominator asked for this nomination to be taken down. Thus, the article's previous on hold (

) state has been made redundant and has been replaced by a fail (

). Manfred (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Manfred von Karma, apologies, but I think you can go ahead and close this. I looked for the manual to provide a gameplay section, but wasn't able to find a copy, and I've spent about as much time on this article as I can take. Thanks for taking the time to review.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Passing comment) I would have noted the Gameplay as an issue (repeating what was already on the talk page) prior to doing a full review. You don't need the manual, which is a primary source. Preferable is to summarize the gameplay from the reviews, if they go into any reasonable depth at all. The idea is that the review will cover any core gameplay that a reader (and thus encyclopedia article) should know.

czar 20:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuchullain: Hello there. Although I did suggest ways you could improve the Gameplay section already, I will do as said and close the review. If you'd like to improve this article's Gameplay section, I would strongly suggest re-playing the game and taking down some notes during play, and build upon that. Manfred (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Czar and Manfred von Karma. I should have been more clear: in addition to not having the manual, I've never played this game, so I have no first-hand knowledge of how to play it. What I did have was the available information on its production, reviews, etc., which came from working on Planet of the Apes rather than any interest in the game itself. "Let's Play" videos helped with the plot section but, ironically, not with how to actually play it. I nominated it many moons ago as I felt those sections were of GA quality, and I didn't see anywhere that video game articles were expected to have gameplay sections to qualify for GA (I must have missed the comment on the talk page to that effect). I won't have the time or inclination to put more work into this article over the next week, and hence requested that it be closed. However, I feel horrible for wasting Manfred's time putting so much thought into the review when it couldn't have passed without that section. Thanks for your effort, and if I (or anyone else) ever does decide to take on the article again in the future, your comments will be very useful. So, please accept my sincere apologies, and thanks again for your help.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good but wanted to add that many editors write about games they've never experienced firsthand—our content is usually paraphrased from the reviews (so as to be verifiable). In fact, you might find someone interested in expanding the gameplay with a message explaining the situation at WT:VG, as it looks like the bulk of the work is done here. czar 01:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuchullain: Don't feel bad! If the article was terrible, I would have stopped everything at the immediate failures test. I made the review not just to evaluate its status as a Good Article, but provide an opinion and ways to improve the article as well. I do hope I was of help! Manfred (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]