Talk:Namcot Collection

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Namcot Collection/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Le Panini (talk · contribs) 05:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll do it. Pointers coming soon :) Le Panini ^Talk 05:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The six good article criteria

• Well written:

Of course there is always gonna be some writing changes, some nitpicky. But hey, that's GA for ya.

• Verifiable with no original research:

I'd suggest using the "|trans title=" parameter for the references in other languages. It displays what the title is in English. If you can't find an exact translation, go to User:Nihonjoe.

• It seems you've done this, so this section passes.

• Broad in its coverage:

Looks good, this section passes.

• Neutral:

Looks good here, this section passes.

• Stable:

You're really the only one touching this article. This section passes.

• Illustrated:

File:Namcot Collection menu.png is pretty small when clicking on it, and makes it difficult to see what's there. Is it possible to find a larger sized image? If not, then that's alright.

• • Wikipedia's rather tight-fisted image policies prevent me from uploading one in a larger size, so I just had to make do with that one.

  Well, at least I know you tried. This section passes.

Infobox

• Just like Darius Gaiden, the infobox claims there is multiplayer but is mentioned nowhere else in the article. If only certain games in the compilation support multiplayer, I'd suggest either A) mentioning it in gameplay with some examples ("Certain games feature multiplayer, such as...") or B) put a footnote by the game where they are all listed.
  • Typically when I list the amount of modes in a game's infobox, the game itself is the citation (same thing with composers, designers, genres, etc.). There's definitely multiplayer options in this compilation, but I have yet to find a source that isn't MobyGames or similar unreliable database sites which confirms this. I don't think a source is necessary here.

  I was gonna suggest if you came up empty that you don't necessarily need a source.

Lead

• ";as players began receiving the wrong games after purchasing them individually, Bandai Namco was forced to pull it from the Nintendo eShop temporarily. Though reviewers applauded..." "Though" here feels like as if the reviewers criticized the game for having a temporary de-list, like I'll see in the reception section that "Reviewers criticized the game for having a de-list" somewhere. It should be changed or re-worded.

Gameplay

• Link Namcot, probably using [[Namco#Success with home consoles (1984–1989)|Namcot]] where the subdivision is mentioned.
  • Done.
• What is an "in-house"? Is this gamer jargon? If so, use a more descriptive way to explain this.
  • "In-house" means that it is something designed within a company, instead of being out-sourced to another. It's not "gamer jargon", it's a very real term that applies to things outside video games as well. I think it's fine to have in here.

  Heh, I know what it means, I was just putting myself in the reader's shoes. You got your reason, so it seems all good. I still think Wikipedia needs an article on this, though.

• Some of titles -> Some of the titles
  • Typo that I overlooked. Corrected.
• "Players can "rewind" back a few seconds in gameplay and save their progress." I think this is too simple of a way to explain a rewind feature, and should be described in more detail.
  • I disagree it needs more detail. Rare Replay has the same thing and it summarizes it in less than a sentence. I tried clarifying it again.

  I like the change, so this is good.

• Using "virtual" in the second paragraph; Isn't a video game itself virtual? I don't think this word is necessary.
  • Removed.

Development

• Link homebrew again
  • Done.

  Actually, according to User:Ucucha/duplinks, it shouldn't be linked again (XD), so I changed it.

• According to Google, "anthologies" means a collection of poems or music. Why is this used to describe Namco Museum?
  • I got real tired of constantly using the terms "collection" and "compilation", so I tried to use a different word to make it more varied. I've heard people refer to collections like these as "anthologies" (Namco even had a series of collections called Namco Anthology), so I think it's okay to use it here.

  Okey dokey.

• "In Japan, the game was published as a free "launcher" application..." I think this should be phrased with more detail for better reading. Readers with no knowledge of the game would probably think "so... a demo?"
  • Clarified what it is.

Reception

• "dull presentation and inferiority to the Japanese original" In what way? The comments by critics that follow this claim are very bad, with mainly just saying "It was bad, because _{and then no reason why}"
  • I chose to remove the bit about the presentation as most critics don't offer much commentary on it outside of "it sucks, do better". I instead used it as a way to talk about its lack of artwork scans and other extras, which critics do seem to go into detail about. Hopefully that's good enough.

  I don't understand what the developers could "do better" about a video game re-release. They need to cool down.

• I'd suggest changing "grew up with the NES" to "grew up playing the NES".
  • Done.
• Super Xevious and Pac-Land should be linked
  • Done.

References

• As mentioned above, the reviews in other languages should show the English title using the "|trans title=" parameter.
  • Done.

Other

• A couple of duplicate links, I'd suggest installing User:Ucucha/duplinks to distinguish and remove them. It helps a lot.

Verdict

Not bad at all. The only real issue I have is with the "Well Written" section, but doesn't everybody? For now, I'll put this review On Hold for you to make changes. If you think "nah" for any of my comments, leave me a reply. I'm not watching this page, so be sure to ping me. Take care! Le Panini ^Talk 06:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Le Panini That should be it. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 00:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Namcokid47: Yep, looks good! I'll promote it now. Le Panini ^Talk 02:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Flibirigit (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Japanese digital version of Namcot Collection was temporarily pulled from sale the same day it was released? "Namcot Collection: Series 1 Pulled From Japanese eShop After Customers Receive Wrong Games".
  • ALT1:... that the developers acquired the rights and used a Japanese ROM hack of Pac-Man Championship Edition from 2008 for the Namcot Collection? "We traced Namco's "new" Pac-Man demake to its source: A 2008 fan ROMhack".
  • ALT2:... that the main menu of the Namcot Collection is designed to look like a collector's shelf? "Namco Museum Archives Vol 1 Review (Switch eShop)". June 24, 2020.

Improved to Good Article status by Namcokid47 (talk). Nominated by Le Panini (talk) at 03:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC).

• The first sentence of the Games section is improperly referenced because the source doesn't mention "the Japanese consumer game division of Namco, for the Family Computer (Famicom) and Nintendo Entertainment System (NES)." The second sentence of that section is also improperly referenced because while the article says that some of the games were developed by Game Freak and Atlus, one of the sources only mentions one game by Game Freak and Atlus isn't in either source. As for the third sentence of that section, the years 1980 and 1981 are not in the source. As for the fourth sentence in that section, the year 1989 isn't mentioned in either source and the first source specifically states that Splatterhouse was only released for the Famicom with no mention of NES. As for the next sentence, the source mentions none of those genres. As for the next sentence, "homebrew" and the year 2007 aren't mentioned anywhere. I'm failing this as the GA review was clearly flawed and I see no reason to look through the rest of the article until a proper one by someone else is completed. SL93 (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• SL93, Hm... you have a good reputation with source review, but I know that Namcokid does know what they are doing and works well in the video game community. I addressed these concerns to them. Le Panini ^[🥪] 20:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Everything is required to be cited and I’m more concerned that it seems like you, as the GA reviewer, didn’t pay attention to what is in the sources. SL93 (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Let me do some clarification.

1. Sentence 1: It's rather taken using other context; it says how Namco split into Namcot to publish games for consoles from 1984 to 1985, coincidentally during the existence of the NES and Famicom. Other things unmentioned (such as "the company split into Namcot"), are common sense.
2. Another common sense example; Game Freak developed Mendal Palace.
3. Common sense, if the source doesn't say that "by the way, Pac-man came out in 1980", this is just for reference; it's just to show the viewer when the original game came out. They can click the link and find the date in the first sentence, with citation there.
4. This can be fixed by replacing "and" with "or", to distinguish. This game is just an example how some games were exclusive.
5. I don't know what you're talking about. "Perhaps unsurprisingly, both volumes lean into the shmup genre the most, and include the likes of Gaplus, Super Xevious and the excellent Dragon Spirit. Otherwise, there’s a good selection of platformers, one or two RPG titles, arcade essentials like Dig Dug, and Japanese exclusives like the adorably horrifying Splatterhouse: Wanpaku Graffiti." This section describes the games include the different genres (shmup is an abbreviation of shoot em' up)
6. Once again, 2007 doesn't need to be cited, and homebrew (im pretty sure) means a modern game recreated on previous consoles, usually with hardware restrictions. As it says in the second source, ""it also includes a brilliant NES demake of 2007’s Pac-Man Championship Edition that actually turns out to be the best game in the entire compilation".

Le Panini ^[🥪] 14:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Le Panini You are wrong about multiple things as well as how DYK has always worked. Please stop pointing to an essay and no, this stuff isn't common sense for non-gamers. Years, at least for the main page, always need to be cited. For DYK, readers are not expected to click on other articles for more information. It isn't common sense for Mendal Palace that Game Freak developed it if someone isn't a gamer (it still doesn't mention Atlus). Demake on Wikipedia redirects to Video game remake and Homebrew (video games) is a completely different article. SL93 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• If you really don't believe me, you can ask at Wikipedia talk:Did you know for another opinion. SL93 (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

SL93 Nah, you have more experience than me; instead of pulling a Twitter and going back and forth with this, I'll just accept the failure and move on. Looks like I gotta look more into sources in the future! However, this may just be unintentional, but there was a bit of snarky remark in your responses (and I'm rather insecure). Before doing changes with the good article stance, however, I'm gonna wait on Namco's opinions. They general respond to comments every other day. Le Panini ^[🥪] 17:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Le Panini It was unintentional, but I'm sure that me trying to find a job after workplace bullying didn't help. It could be that years and some other things don't need to be cited for a Good Article, but I'm mostly basing it off how articles that appear on the main page run. SL93 (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm willing to continue the DYK review if the issues I mentioned above are fixed by anyone who is interested. Is Namcokid47 not interested? SL93 (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Le Panini SL93 (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• It has been a week (and more) without response or work on the article. Marking for closure as unsuccessful. Yoninah (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yoninah I support your decision. The nominator did ask Namcokid47 on December 17 for assistance and both editors have been editing. To be fair though, it really isn't Namcokid47's job due to not being the nominator. SL93 (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree. You can close this if you'd like. Le Panini ^[🥪] 00:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)