Talk:Ghost in the Shell (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Article milestones, Date ...
Good articleGhost in the Shell (video game) 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
November 12, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2014Good article reassessmentKept
March 3, 2014Good article nomineeListed
August 25, 2014Peer reviewNot reviewed
Current status: Good article
Close
More information Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: ...
Close

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ghost in the Shell (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Niwi3 (talk · contribs) 20:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to review this article. However, I see a number of serious issues that need to be addressed before the article passes a GA review.

Lead
  • "is a cyberpunk video game developed by Exact for the PlayStation" - Use video game genres instead of visual/narrative genres.
 Done by someone else. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The lead does not summarize adequately the body of the article since it does not contain information about the gameplay and development.
  • The phrase "The game had received mainly positive reviews for its graphics, animation, and music, including its unusual wall-climbing mechanics with some negative targeting its tedious gameplay and low difficulty" needs some copyediting to make sense.
 Done Just added today by Niemti. That is not my fault. Though easily fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Gameplay
  • The general reader does not know what a "think tank" is.
 Done
  • The section is incomplete: What is the game? an RPG? a shooter? an action adventure? How does the player progress in the game? By completing levels? objectives? Are there any bosses? Does the Fuchikoma have health? What is the difference between using Machine-guns vs Bombs? Overall, this section leaves more questions than answers.

 Done

Plot
  • Who is Aramaki? Motoko? Batou? Sawamura? An article must not assume that the reader is intimately familiar with its topic.
I don't know how much is really necessary for this; you do not interact or control them - they have no backstory and play no significant role. You are asking the equivalent of a backstory on Yoshi for Super Mario World; I can do this if you want though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Cast
  • I personally think this section is unnecessary, mainly because some voice actors are unknown.
The names are all in the credits, but they are not specifically drawn to the cast members by names in the credits. There is no harm in having it as it is another aspect of the game. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Development and Release
  • I would suggest merging both sections into one two-paragraph section called "Development and release".
 Done Already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Who developed this game? The content of the lead and infobox should appear in the body of the article.
  • T*HQ -> THQ
 Done From the article, "Though always formally called THQ, the company typically traded as T*HQ in video games' box arts and instruction manuals." Though it has been fixed already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done The first usage is linked. Per WP:OVERLINK every usage should not be linked. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "The North American release date was on October 31, 1997. The European release date was on July 1, 1998." -> The game was released in North America on October 31, 1997 and in Europe on July 1, 1998.
 Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Related media
  • This section should come after the reception section.
Reception
I sorta disagree about this; wouldn't it just be a template for the sake of adding a template? Lucia, any thoughts? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Convert the section to two paragraphs close to the same length (one for audio/graphics and the other for gameplay).
    • I remember i added a gamefan review in here. was it by any chance removed? If so, i'll look in the history but i'm pretty sure i added it in.Lucia Black (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
References
  • Inconsistent date formats ("3 September 2013" in ref 11, "May 23, 2003" in ref 23, "2013-07-06" in ref 28, etc).
  • ref 21 is a dead link.
  • ref 11 and 21 are the same.
  • ref 28 lacks author and date.
 Done Referencing date formats are not a GA issue, but I can fix them quick enough. Also... Ref 21 is not dead. 11 and 21 are not the same and I don't see which one it is. Could you tell me besides mere numbers, they seem to have been swapped about. The GameSpot one, #18 did go 404, but I provided the archive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Ref 11 and 16 (gamespot review) are the same.Lucia Black (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In conclusion, there are enough significant issues in the article in that merely placing on hold is not going to do any good, so I am going to fail this GA nomination soon. Please, feel free to re-nominate once the issues have been addressed. You may also wish to request a peer review before you re-nominate so that everything is good to go. If you have any questions on these points, or if you think I'm being unreasonable, please ask. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried to discussion on Niwi3's talk page, he replied on mine, but doesn't seem to want to discuss it now that he's set on it being failed. I just got home and took care many of the issues already. After waiting so long, it just seems a waste to have this failed over a bunch of already fixed issues that took less than half and hour to correct. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for waiting so long to respond; it was 2 A.M. when I posted my last comment. In any case, there are still issues that need to be addressed: the gameplay section needs to be expanded and therefore referenced. After that, you are welcome to re-nominate the article. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add this phrase to the intro, LB did. Yes, there are bosses, and a health bar (and a bar for machine gun heating, if I remember correctly). --Niemti (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! It's fixed and I've put it up for GAR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Some Additional Comments

I'm going to add some comments on some issues I have noticed just in the Intro part of the article:


1) "...video game developed by Exact and Production I.G for the PlayStation." --Production I.G is listed as a developer in the opening paragraph, but is absent from the right side overview box under Developer.

2) "It was localized by THQ and released in North America on October 31, 1997 and in Europe on July 1, 1998." --This sentence leads you to believe that both the NA and European version were published by THQ, but the right side overview box has SCEE listed as providing publishing for the European version of the game. This is inconsistent.

3) "Ghost in the Shell's plot revolves around a new recruit of Public Security Section 9 and investigate and combat the Human Liberation Front." --This gramatically does not make much sense.


As you can see, I think there are just minor issues overall with grammer, inconsistent information, and flow (the second paragraph in the Gameplay section is very choppy, for example). Just adding some insight if you want to work on getting this article closer towards GA status :) All the best --Mordecairule 19:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordecairule (talk • contribs)

I've fixed the issues you brought up, thank you.Lucia Black (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to comment the first paragraph of the Development section. It says that the fuchikoma concept is derived from the tank appearing in the movie from 1995. However, fuchikomas with the same design as in the game appeared in the mangas some years earlier. And from a quick lookup regarding the stated designers, Shōji Kawamori and Atsushi Takeuchi, it appears that they indeed were involved but their contribution is not clear to me. However, i have no knowledge about the contents of the referenced article. CubanPedatro (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 23:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ghost in the Shell (video game)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will take up this article. I'll get to it as soon as possible, but it may be a couple of days. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, here we go.

Lead:

  • Nothing wrong here. Demonstrates all the salient points.

Gameplay:

  • Writing concise and well-phrased. Ably demonstrates salient points. All references work good, though I might update the url for ref 5. And possibly archive ref 4.

Plot: A few minor issues concerning grammar and manual of style.

  • "Section 9 were able to trace their communication and located their location at the Bay area however was a trap." Maybe "Section 9 are able to trace their communication and locate their location at the Bay area, however is a trap." would be better.
    • "However is a trap" still isn't right. I'd suggest changing it to "Section 9 are able to trace their communication and locate their location at the Bay area; however, it is a trap." Tezero (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Batou and Togusa encounter obstacles that disable them from moving forward, leaving the Rookie to be the only available member." I think "Batou and Togusa encounter obstacles that prevent them from moving forward, leaving the Rookie as the only available member."
  • "After the ordeal, it was revealed that Sawamura planned". Possibly "is" rather than "was" in that part of the sentence.
  • "however Zebra 27 intervene and wanted to take over the nuclear reactor to extort money from Sawamura.". Perhaps change to "however Zebra 27 intervened and wanted to take over the nuclear reactor to extort money from Sawamura.".
  • "Kusanagi declares the entire ordeal a training mission for the Rookie, but criticized his over dependency of the Fuchikoma." Maybe change to "Kusanagi declares the entire ordeal a training mission for the Rookie, but criticizes his over-dependency on the Fuchikoma."

Developemnt:

  • Clear read and sound-looking references.

Release and promotion:

  • You might want to archive refs 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, but that's entirely optional as all are operational.

Reception:

  • Ref 31 is the same as ref 5 4. This needs dealing with.

That's all I can find here. All relatively minor. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: I made most of the necessary changes, only one sentences I that Tezero didn't agree with was difficult to figure out. The rest i don't think will affect Ga status such as archiving but i have been worried about it and will ask someone with more knowledge on how to archive or if someone can do it for me. Lucia Black (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Also i'm not sure what you mean by ref 31 nd ref 5 being the same, i just checked and they don't appear the same, i even clicked both links. Lucia Black (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I am so sorry. I meant ref 4. Has been corrected. And you can archive urls here. Just copy and paste the url, hit "browse history" and either select the latest archived version that shows what you want or, if it hasn't been done yet, archive it. The site doesn't show any signs of going down in a hurry. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Like i said, i dont know how to archive myself, i know how to search through archives already placed. Lucia Black (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I can do it if you like, unless that would invalidate my ability to review this article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

For now i don't think its necessary to pass or fail the article. I think we covered most of them. i personally dont think it would be harmful i've seen other editors intervene with certain minor issues. Anchiving these pages would help preserve the GA though if it passes. Lucia Black (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've sorting out the archiving. Give me a little time to go over it again, and I'll get back with a final verdict. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Second Pass: Nothing wrong that I can see. All issues sorted. Yep. I think a pass for this article. Good work. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

FA preparation

Cleaned up

Automatic archiving

Inaccuracy

Japanese Cover

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI