Talk:Gumball (video game)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 09:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy to pick this up. Review to follow a little later; I have an errand to run this morning. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• I feel a link to gumball machine or bubblegum or chewing gum somewhere would be appropriate; the premise of this game makes sense in a particular kind of context, but I think some people (IE, children or people from non-western contexts) might struggle with this.
• "a week to create the main gumball machine" I feel you're treating this like a physical machine, when, of course, it isn't (unless I'm completely misunderstanding?)
• "a hidden Easter egg hidden" Repetition
• Do we have a box art image?
• A link to home computer might be useful; it's not a term as common a it was.
• "individual gumballs towards a bin with its corresponding color" Singular/plural shift
• "the gumballs in the bin"
• "such as the individual gumball movement through the pipes" Do you perhaps mean "individual gumballs' movement"? Your current wording does make sense (I think), but it's a slightly odd construction, as you're using "gumball" as an adjective.
• "added small additions" Repetition
• "Cook wrote Gumball's title page and the animations between levels towards the end" Is "wrote" the right word, here? "scripted" or "coded" I could understand.
• "The game became fun to play near the end of development" That seems slightly non-neutral to present in Wikipedia's voice.
• "Cook added the gumball bombs and tweaked the mechanism that caught them—he first tried a player-controlled claw, then an item that traversed the pipes before finally deciding on crosshairs for the player to fire." This is new to me; could details of it not be added to the gameplay section?
• "removing digital copyright protections from Apple II software for preservation at the Internet Archive," This currently reads as if the protections are being preserved; how about "removing digital copyright protections from Apple II software which was to be preserved at [in?] the Internet Archive"?
• "Thereafter, the player was required to press a secret keyboard combination upon completion of each of the levels, to show parts of a substitution cipher, and once more to reveal the final clue. Finally, the player had to type the solution to the riddle, to access the developer's congratulations." In my view, this doesn't read very well. Could it perhaps be redrafted?
• The paragraph about the Easter egg is fascinating; I wonder, though, whether it warrants a separate section; you could just call it "Easter egg discovery" or something. It seems to be a separate part of the story to the development. (Also, it would make for a great DYK fact if/when this article reaches GA status).
• "via Lathrop 1985" I'm a bit puzzled by this. Unless Lathrop 1985 provides the full text of (e.g.) Browning's article, I'm assuming that you actually mean "quoted in". I don't know if we have a template for this. Or am I misunderstanding?
• You say in the lead that reviewers "questioned the social role of simulating mundane work". Are you sure about this? I'm not sure it's fully consistent with what you write in the article body.
• I find the lead a little long. At the very least, could you perhaps merge some paragraphs to make it two paragraphs?

I'm happy enough with the references and formatting for GA purposes. I wonder if there's more literature out there, but finding it might be a nightmare; given that we have a source saying that it was never very successful or popular, I'm happy enough for GA purposes. Perhaps you could try to pull a few more claims from the reviews you do have, but that's just a suggestion. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review, as ever, @J Milburn. I wasn't expecting to find much on this at all—one of those games relegated to obscurity, but with the developer article and a few reviews, I pulled it off. The Easter egg element is oddly enough what pulls the topic together. (I don't do DYK anymore, but someone else is welcome to nominate it, if you know anyone who would be interested.) I'd consider that part of development because the developer hid it, and I think it would be too awkward or possibly undue weight if off on its own. I had to dig around a bit, but the "via Lathrop" was my mis-recollection of Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say_where_you_read_it. I started a thread at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Say_where_you_got_it, if you're curious. The part about the substitution cipher was rewritten by an IP—I think that's the version you read. I think I've addressed everything, if you'll take a look. czar 17:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Great; I'll take a properly look-through later today. As an initial comment, I'm now inclined to think that it's a little over-illustrated; the images make it look a bit cluttered. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Just one other little thing: You still don't mention the crosshairs in the gameplay section proper. It's only in the development section. (And please check my further edits.) Josh Milburn (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The crosshairs weren't mentioned in any of the reviews or descriptions of gameplay, so I revised that mention but can't confirm for the gameplay. It's in the Development section as an example of the dev's iterative design process—not sure how it actually turned out. The images should be fine, no? There's plenty of breathing room between them. (I prefer article without any images, personally, but only added them when you asked.) I suppose the gumballs could go, but you mentioned that some readers might not know what they are. I also don't think such a distinction needs to be drawn between the player and the character (of course the player herself is not getting a promotion outside the game)—that readers understand the basic synecdoche but hey czar 16:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate what you say about the character/player distinction, but I'm aware that some readers may not really be familiar with video gaming. It also catches my eye because it's wrong to say (for example) that a player sets of a nuclear bomb; a player is someone sat in their living room drinking a coke. It makes for a weird real world/fictional world blurring. Anyway, I suppose we're both pretty happy with how the article now looks, so I'm going to go ahead and promote this article at this time. Nice work, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Developer: Robert or Veda?

@Czar:: My edit to this article got reverted by you with a reference to MOS:GENDERID. All it states there is not to put emphasis on the gender change (which I didn't) and to decide on a case-by-case basis. I understand that the sources speak of 'Robert', but also that Hlubinka-Cook's latest expressed gender-identification prefers 'Veda'. I don't see how the policy requires us to decide one way or the other. --denny vrandečić (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources for "Veda" are primary sources and very new (LinkedIn name change & conference listing from March—neither with explanation). The guideline says to use context—we can wait to see what the sources say, but all sources for this game (including the cover itself) refer to Robert, even if it's a historical name. czar 19:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

On articles such as The Cuckoo's Calling we also state that it is written by JK Rowling, not by Robert Galbraith, in the very first sentence. All sources before the name was revealed obviously were saying Galbraith. So what exactly would we be waiting for? Newer sources discussing a 34 year old video game?

I would like to follow MOS:GENDERID, which you linked, which says not to make a big deal out of it on linked articles, and use the person's latest self-expression. MOS:GENDERID unfortunately does not explain what it means to use context to decide this in this case, so we have to figure it out. --denny vrandečić (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, because what do the sources say? The sources say Rowling under the pseudonym Galbraith, not just "Rowling" or "Galbraith". And what do they say in this case? And no, GENDERID does explain to use context, as we've already discussed—context being sources. If you have a good source that shows her as switching names, then I'm fine with mentioning that at the first usage for argument's sake, but all sources refer to this game as being by a "Richard", so that needs to be explained in the text. If we're not to make a big deal of the gender, the only other solution is to minimize all mentions of the developer by name. czar 21:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• And the reason for keeping the previous redirects is to not astonish the reader. "It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading." It's better to hover over Robert Cook (programmer) and see the redirect to Veda Hlubinka-Cook than to click on one name and get another (without the redirect). czar 20:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Wait, that argument - 'It may be appropriate to make this kind of change...' - is in the section that says why one *should* fix the link to the redirect. This is not an argument for not fixing the redirect.

And I agree with the sentiment in WP:DONOTFIX that it would preferable to simply use the name Veda and not to pipe the link at all. --denny vrandečić (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

why one *should* fix Remember that "Robert" is the redirect in this case. I think you mean WP:NOTBROKEN, which is what I quoted. czar 21:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)