Talk:Panzer Dragoon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 14:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC) — probably going to get to next week, later than planned. 17:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

David Fuchs did you forget about this review? (t · c) buidhe 06:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It's still in progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Friendly bystander question, you still looking at this one? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Overall, the article is in solid shape. Some comments as follows:

• General:
  • Uncited: There is no story; the display features a dragon with rider and static enemies and obstacles that intermittently appear around them and can be dodged or shot. All images that can be displayed are built into the game's LCD display, showing as black silhouettes against either a blank background (on the R-Zone) or a single static background image taken from the first level of the original Panzer Dragoon (on the Pocket Arcade).

    Next to nothing has been written about this throw-away spin-off outside of fan sites and forums. I can attach a YouTube video of the game being played, if that would help? I could also just completely cut it from the article; it may not meet the notability guidelines. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  • I think my main issue is the reception section, which gives a lot of pull quotes rather than summarizing the pros and cons of each one quickly. (The Orta section seems generally better than the others.) Also, is there any more legacy information about the series as a whole?

    Surely it does both? Each paragraph begins with a sentence or two "summarizing the pros and cons" of the critical reception for the game. The PD section has ~70 words of critical summary, with ~30 words of quotation; The Zwei section has ~80 words of critical summary, with ~30 words of quotation; The Saga section has ~110 words of critical summary, with ~20 words of quotation; the Orta section has ~70 words of critical summary, with ~20 words of quotation.

    I think you're right, that this article could use more of a summary of the reception and retrospective view of the series. I've added a paragraph to the "Reception" section with a new source examining the series as a whole. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

    Are the topic sentences for each paragraph (e.g. Zwei was critically acclaimed upon release, with praise focusing on the cutting-edge graphics, gameplay refinements relative to the first game, and the continued strength of the art design, music, and atmosphere, though the low difficulty again received criticism.) supposed to be supported by the sources after them? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    Yes, but I could also put a stack of citations to various reviews right after each of the summary sentences, if that seems warranted for verifiability? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    Since it's otherwise unclear what is being cited where, I think more precise citing would be helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

    Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Media:
  • No issues.
• References:
  • What makes PCInvasion, Wavemaster, and RocketBaby reliable sources?

    PCInvasion has as much editorial oversight and accountability as most internet news sites (which isn't much). Wave-Master is a branch of Sega, so we can probably trust their statements about which soundtracks their own staff have worked on. RocketBaby is a tough one; I don't think that interview actually adds anything over the other interview at the end of the sentence, so I've cut it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

    Given it's not been discussed at RSN or VG/S I'd say cut PCInvasion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    In that case, I'll just cut the R-Zone game, which hasn't had enough published about it to satisfy the notability guidelines. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  • You've got some inconsistent formatting (italicizing or not Eurogamer) and some CS1 errors in the references.

    Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  • I feel like given the amount of plot given for each game, it should probably be cited.

    I'm counting ~250 words of plot summary total, hardly over the top for four games. WP:VG/PLOT says "Straightforward plot summary is assumed to be sourced to the game itself and thus does not require sources." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Did a spot-check to statements attributed to refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, 18, 22, 31, 45, 49, 57, 63, 66, 72, and 74.
    • The instruction manual refers to the "Ancient Time", not the "Ancient Age", and doesn't adequately cover some of the content (genetic engineering the weapons, etc.)

      The translators shifted to "Ancient Age" starting with Saga. The Orta manual e.g. uses "Ancient Age" and specifically describes the monsters as "bio-engineered creatures". I've added a citation to the Orta manual to that first paragraph. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

    • Ref 2 and others has page numbers through the {{rp}} but other refs have it in the citation template. Any reason for this?

      {{rp}} is for citing the same source repeatedly, but drawing attention to different pages each time. When a source is cited only once, the page numbers can be incorporated into the citation template. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

    • I feel like the use of primary sources for large chunks of the games section (for example, the Orta section) is inappropriate, in that we should be demonstrating through secondary sources what's so important about these entries.

      I've added a citation to the Orta section. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

    • Ref 3 doesn't really cover the ending boss levels stuff.

      From the source: "In boss battles or showdowns with large enemies, you use the lock-on to target weak spots with multiple shots." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

      The prose is still going beyond what the source explicitly says (for example, it mentions the lock-on ability but it doesn't mention switching between a laser and machine gun, and it doesn't mention levels at all, nor the placement of the bosses at the end of them.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

      That source specifically describes switching between the two firing modes (e.g. "The trade-off is that firing a burst of shots is much slower than tapping the attack button for single attacks."). I've added a source mentioning the level structure. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

      • But where does the citation mention a laser and machine gun? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

    • Ref 31 doesn't seem to source the content attributed to it (Zwei's story bit.)

      From the source (Futatsugi speaking): "Yamada-san was concentrating on Zwei while I was concentrating on Azel. In the beginning I was looking over both, but towards crunch time at the end of Saga development, Yamada-san was focusing on Zwei." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

      That's likewise going beyond what's the source. It doesn't mention the story becoming Yamada's sole responsibility, and it doesn't say Futatsugi was in charge of both game's narratives. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

      I'm sorry, but, that's exactly what the sentence I quoted above says. It specifically does says that Futatsugi initially oversaw both games ("In the beginning I was looking over both...") and that Yamada became the leader on Zwei as the project progressed ("towards crunch time at the end of Saga development, Yamada-san was focusing on Zwei"). Earlier in the same paragraph, Futatsugi says, "he [Yamada] was the main guy on Zwei." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Hey, just checking to make sure you saw this. Looking forward to your further feedback. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I've gone through another pass on the sourcing and I've found what I would consider similar issues with imprecision leading to verification issues. I'm still concerned by the use of primary sources, comprehensiveness, and the writing on the reception section. It's clear we're not going to see eye to eye on this so I'm failing and will let another reviewer do their own job evaluating. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)