Talk:Tin Star (video game)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 10:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
  • Where? HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • Where? HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -
  • Where? HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC
    • This is just the criteria, not that this article has some. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Links

Prose

Lede

• Lede is a bit short, could do with an expansion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • How? HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, the lede mentions nothing about the gameplay, the release or the development.
      • Are you sure we're reading the same article? It's introduced with the gameplay genre, established the different perspectives between levels (both satisfying gameplay), states it was "released by Nintendo for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES) in North America in November 1994," and states "it was developed by Software Creations." Everything you're looking for was already there before you reviewed it. I have added in the lead that it was Software Creation's third Nintendo-published game. However, adding anything else would include specifics that should only be in the body. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Add a WP:SHORT DESCRIPTION. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • (1) I don't know what page you're trying to link me. (2) I think the lead has enough short descriptions.
    • A WP:SHORTDESCRIPTION Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
      • What short description am I missing? Everything essential is here, I don't see it. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I have gone ahead and added this for you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• " shoot 'em up video game" - WP:SEAOFBLUE. In the lede, say what it is (a video game), and you can later say its a shoot 'em up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No. That would go against WP:VG/GENRE which requires the genre to be stated in the lead. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Ol' West town of East Driftwood - is this the full name of the town? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Clarified HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    • What is "a town in the Ol' West"? Is the Ol' West also a location in the game? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
      • It seems to be an large area that consists of a bunch of towns. It was discussed in the manual but never specified there. Is it best if I removed this since it has no effect on the game? HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Could we not just say it is set in the Wild West? I see the reception makes this comparrison. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Super NES controller, Super Scope or the SNES Mouse. - isn't this normal? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • See what I commented below HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• No need to link to critics Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• (especially the graphics and humor) - why is this in brackets. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • They're the most frequently brought-up parts of the presentation in reviews. Why not the brackets? HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• The lede should have some info on the development. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think "developed by Software Creations and released by Nintendo" is enough. Adding more would spoil more than half of the short development info. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

General

• Tin Star is an arcade-style[3] shoot 'em up game[4][5] - this is the first thing to describe the game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Tin Star is an arcade-style[3] shoot 'em up game[4][5] - why the refs in the middle of the sentence? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • One citation indicates it's arcade-style, the two others indicate it's a shoot 'em up HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Is there no sources that say both of these things? Feels a bit WP:SYNTHy to me. Is "arcade-style" really a genre? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• but also with the Super Scope and the SNES Mouse. - this seems normal to me, why are we putting so much stock in this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • This is my fault for not clarifying this in the article. Because it was the first (and seemingly only), title to be compatible with all of these controllers at the same time. In other SNES games, only one or the other could be used. For example, you could only playing Mario Paint with the SNES mouse.
  • Added clarification HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    • The ordering is quite off but also with the Super Scope and the SNES Mouse,[6][7][8] It takes place on seven days, from Monday[9] from Sunday,[10] and each one consists of shooting practice with a jug, action stages, and a fast draw with a Bad Oil Gang member.[11] making it the first SNES game to be playable with all controllers.[12]
• This "Summary" section, doesn't really cover the game, or gameplay, and feels a little WP:GAMEGUIDEy to me Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I don't see the criticism here. This is the simplest and most concise the gameplay could be presented here, and it's because there isn't that much to the gameplay experience. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    • You don't even describe what a shoot-em-up is. The bit at the bottom should really go at the top, describing what the player can hit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
      • It already describes what the player can hit: "Cash is collected by shooting enemies in any stage," "here are also objects to hit, such as canteens that regain Tin Star's hit points[20] and parts of the scenery that if hit an enough number of times, will trigger a Secret Bonus stage;" Are you sure you've read the article carefully? HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• This would benefit from a paragraph (at least) covering what Tin Star is (a video game released for the SNES). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the infobox, lead, and the first paragraph in the gameplay about the game's compatibility with SNES controllers makes that obvious enough to the reader. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• The amount of levels total 31, unheard of for a shoot 'em up at the time of its release Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I changed the sentence to make it more formal, but I don't see the need to attribute an objective fact to one person. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    • The source in question says 7 levels mind. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Nope. It says "There are seven levels that feature a total of 31 action sequences." The 7 can be assumed to be the days of the week (since the game takes place during seven days of a week) and the "sequences" are all the 31 stages. Would you look the sentence in the article worded differently HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• The body and lede are seperate. If you talk about something in the lede, you also need to define it in the body. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• and a showdown with a Bad Oil member. - why not just a "boss"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Again, this might be not clarified, but its because there are regular bosses during the action and a separate types of stages that are quickdraw showdowns. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Oh, in that case, I would add something on that, that seems like a bit of fun. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• The third-person segments take place on rides, stampedes, and in town; while the first-person levels are located in jails, banks, and saloons - I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Um... that there are locations that take place only when the level is of a perspective. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• There's a lot of refs in the middle of the sentence, and I'm not sure why. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Because there are specific details only shown in specific parts of the manual; it works in the article's favor to show accuracy. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Might I just recommend sourcing to the manual as a whole? Realistically the manual is a pretty poor source (due to WP:PRIMARY issues), I don't think we gain much from citing directly to a specific page when the info is spread across a lot. The bit about locations for instance is all in the same reference, just cite between pages 14-19. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
      • (1) You know primary sources aren't automatically unreliable because they're primary, right?
      • (2) Manuals from the games' original publishers have been cited in other good articles and recently-nominated-and-promoted featured articles (see Super Mario All-Stars).
      • (3) Why are we questioning a source about the game written and published by the game's developers and publishers? They made the game, the publisher had to know info about it, how could they get information about their own friggin product incorrect?
• Plot sections don't need references, I feel you have reached out a bit to cite all this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• The characters section feels very WP:FANCRUFTy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The game has a story progressed with cutscenes between levels, and all the characters discussed either make recurring appearances, are discussed in the manual heavily, or all serve as essential characters in the quickdraw showdowns. I don't think any of these characters are too minor not to be discussed in a game with a narrative.
    • The games manual isn't a great source for this. Do any of these characters get mentioned in other media? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Do they have to be? A game's plot is one of its most essential aspects, and the humorous cutscenes were frequently highlighted in reviews. The characters mentioned are a prominent part of that, so I'm not seeing how they're so trivial to the point of being WP:FANCRUFT-y. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• The development section is very short. No info on the actual release Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • That's because the info on development that's available IS small, and I don't think release has to do with the making of the game. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    • So, why is there no information on the release of the game? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Tin Star was no exception - super informal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Changed this HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Why no info on designers and producers, etc? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Because (1) that's established in the infobox, and (2) their contributions are never discussed in sources.
    • Then we shouldn't have them in the infobox. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Let me clarify. There aren't secondary independent sources discussing who worked on it (although the artists are already discussed in the development section). The game has end credits crediting who worked on the game. Would it make since if I cited the end credits and used that to talk about the other people that worked on this, cause the team only had, like, four other people that worked on it. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Critics called Tin Star fun,[13][63][57][59] - WP:CITEKILL, happens a bunch in reception. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Reception is a sea of citations. I'd think you'd be better copyediting this section, see Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • To respond to both comments
    • (1) Consolidating opinions is perfectly in line with the reception essay you gave me plus WP:VG/REC.
    • (2) It's acceptable to have multiple citations at a time to indicate that an opinion that isn't common sense knowledge to the reader was widespread in critical reviews.
    • (3) WP:CITEKILL seems to consider any bundle of around fix-to-six or more citations to be overkill. However, only one bundle in the reception has five cites, only one has four, and others only have three-to-two.
    • (4) There are no unique or noteworthy quotes in the reviews, as all of them consist of very simplistic statements like "The graphics are great," "the music is fantasstic," "the works work perfectly," and stuff like that. Quoting any of those statements would be redundant and violate WP:VG/REC if anythiing.
  • HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    • • I'm not asking for quotes, but something a bit nicer. CITEKILL is generally having more than 3 refs for a point. If you need to use more, you can use WP:BUNDLING. How about the following to start?:

Tin Star was received positively by reviewers. It was considered a fun game that was suitable for younger players.<ref name="GameProts"/><ref name = "Associated Press"/> It was considered unique from other shoot 'em up titles for its comic nature, cartoon graphics.<ref name="TDE"/><ref name="C+ts"/> The game's quick draw bosses drew particular praise, which Última Generación declared the best all-time aspect of games in the genre.<ref name = "Ultima"/> Critics were positive about the games "perfect control"<ref name="Associated Press"></ref> and ability to modify both cursor speed and difficulty.<ref name="TDE"/>

Computer and Video Games called it the best game to use the Super Scope,<ref name="CVGts"/> while critics from GamePro and Total! claimed it was easiest to play with the Super Scope and Mouse.<ref name = "Total"/><ref name="GameProts"/> The graphics were praised and called the "best on the SNES".<ref name = "Associated Press"/><ref name = "Total"/> The graphics were were noted for their varied styles,<ref name = "SuperGamePower"/> colorfulness,</nowiki> jocularity,<ref name="TDE"/> and attention to detail.</nowiki> The music and sound effects were praised for capturing a wild west aesthetic,<ref name = "Total"/><ref name="TDE"/> and the humor and story was enjoyed by some but not all critics.<ref name="NPts"/><ref name="CVGts"/><ref name="GPts"/>

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, it looks like we are quite a ways apart from our opinions on how close this article is to GA. I am going to fail for now. Feel free to fix up the article and renominate the article when you are happy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Lee Vilenski: Whoa! Whoa! Not even an hour of a day has gone by. Shouldn't you wait until seven days to fail it? I haven't even responded to the example of how you want the reception section. You haven't even responded to some of my responses!!!! HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Lee Vilenski: How about we have more discussion on the problems so we can reach that conclusion instead of abruptly ending the nominated? Yes, I am supposed to fix problems when comments arise revealing those, but the nominator also should make clarifications and bring up when the nominator's wrong too. HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
      • No, it is very clear that this isn't going to get to a reasonable standard from your responses. Feel free to get a new reviewer Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
        • @Lee Vilenski: I'll leave this article alone for now, but I don't understand how a user that's reviewed more than 100 GA nominations and has 12 featured articles to his name presents this lack of understanding towards the article he's reading and WP policies. I'll admit your comments did ring a bell that I needed to clarify the prose a little, but some of your comments were either obviously false, a misunderstanding of what's trivial and what isn't, or could've used more knowledge of the manual of style for video games. Additionally (and if you'd let the review keep going I would've been able to respond with specifics), your example of the reception section only made parts of it more inaccurate. I would ask that you'd take a bit of a break from reviewing given the overwhelming amounts of nominations your reviewing. HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Please don't ping me again. This article is not suitable for GA in this state. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to give you credit for this review at the backlog drive, but I don't see it stated clearly which criteria the article did not meet, in your opinion. Some of the disagreements, such as citing more than three sources in a row or putting citations in the middle of a sentence, are not part of the GA criteria and can't be the basis for failing a review. (t · c) buidhe 20:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

buidhe - I didn't think it was particularly well written (criteria 1a, 1b). I also didn't think it met 3a, due to a lack of release section and quite a real lack of details on the development and in-depth gameplay for the game. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear in the review itself. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)