Talk:ToeJam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:ToeJam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   See below

   B. MoS compliance:

   See below

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   See below

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   See below

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Prose/Style/Layout

Lead

• Is the inline citation necessary?

• "Third instalment" could be wikilinked to the third game.

• Done. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• The infobox could include a series field, even if it's not wikilinked (there probably should be a series article, though).

• Done. I left it black rather than redlinked. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• "The game's platform format was a sharp departure..." - Tone consideration; "sharp" here makes it sound like an exclamation.

• Done. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Sell-out" could also be a tone consideration. Is there a more formal way to express it? Obviously it's fine in the quotes further down, but in the prose itself it may need to be reworded.

• I put it in quotation marks as "selling out". bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Research however has suggested that a significant minority..." - "However" probably isn't necessary here.

• Done. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Overview

• Is "bogymen" misspelled here, or in the source? If it's the latter, make sure there's a [sic].

• Done. It's spelt that way in the source. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Development

• Like the other GA review, you probably only need "understand" or "get", not both.

• Done. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Make sure that all throughout the article, inlines follow punctuation marks.

• Fine, I think. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Reception and legacy

• It may be difficult to find reviews for the Genesis release because it's so old, but surely there are enough reviews for the Virtual Console release to justify a reviews infobox. {{Video game multiple console reviews}} might work; either way make sure the Virtual Console reviews are properly identified so readers aren't confused. An infobox will let you get rid of sentences like "IGN gave the game a "solid" seven out of ten," for instance.

• Is "cancelled" American English? It seems as though the rest of the article is in British English. Either way is fine, just make sure it's consistent.

• Oops, it should have one l. Normally I use British English but I thought US English was more appropriate here since it's a US developer/publisher. Think that's it... there's some UK English verbatim from EuroGamer. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• "It's" should be "Its" in this case.

• Oops. I think someone else fixed it. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Only deigned" sounds a little non-neutral; it may sound better as simply "decided".

• Changed. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• Publishers should be wikilinked in the references.

• Fixed. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Unless it's a magazine or newspaper, publisher's shouldn't be italicized.

• Fixed. bridies (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness

• Where was the game released? Make sure the regions are listed in the infobox.
• The Overview section, despite mentioning the first game, doesn't explain who ToeJam & Earl are and why they've crash-landed on Earth.
• It also doesn't explain that the game is a platformer. Can the characters jump? How do they avoid the Earthlings? etc.
• The Development section is kind of small and only cites two sources. Isn't there any more information out there? There are some comments from the developer in the Reception and legacy section, for instance—maybe they would serve better in Development.
• Development also doesn't mention the game's urban/hip-hop influence.

• The article doesn't mention much about the Virtual Console rerelease. Is it identical to the original? Does it use the Wiimote? Did the developers mention anything about it?

Stability

• I disagree that IGN is an online magazine. It's a website and probably shouldn't be italicized.

This article is on hold until these issues can be addressed. In all honesty, it's a little further away from GA than the other ToeJam & Earl article, but I think it's doable. The article will be on hold for one week or until all issues are addressed. As you fix something, put "Done" underneath it. Good work! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 11:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This review will continue to be on hold until sometime on May 12, 2009 or whenever all of the issues have been fixed. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has exceeded the time allotted to it for modifications and is being failed. If the issues can be resolved in the future, please nominate the article again. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 00:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Future reference:

• Removed citations in the lead.
• Added a review infobox for the Wii rerelease and removed the scores from the prose.
• Release dates are listed in the infobox.
• Clarified who the protagonists are, mentioned "urban" influence etc (in overview rather than development section).
• Clarified that the game is a platformer. Besides mentioning that it is so, reviewers seem to see it as kind of incidental...
• I cited another source in the development section and added a bit more info on the first game for context, but apart from that the available info is pretty much covered.
• The article gives as much space to the rerelease's reception as it does the original release and any more would bias the article IMO, firstly as it was a much bigger deal at the time of its original release rather than its rerelease as a retro game and secondly because it has been much maligned by commentators since its original, well-received release.
• Removed mention of IGN as an "online magazine", I think. bridies (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:ToeJam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Lead

• I still think "selling-out" is simply not formal enough. Would you consider replacing it with something like "The game was criticized for being too sharp a departure from the first game, and some reviewers felt that the developers had been more interested in the publisher's wishes than the fans'."?
  • Done. bridies (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Were you able to determine which regions the game was released in?
  • this (click on "editions") suggests it was released in Japan and Australia in addition to the US and UK. bridies (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Overview

• Who's Lamont the Funkapotomas? Why are Toejam & Earl concerned with him?
  • Source doesn't actually say. As such I just removed the sentence. bridies (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Is he important to the game's plot or the agenda of the protagonists? If so, I think something should be said about him. Vantine84 (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really, I gather, but I added some info on what the subplot involves (collecting bonus items). Presumably you get a bonus cut scene for finding them all, but none of the sources say. bridies (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Toejam "dons" clothes, another tone consideration. "Is dressed in" or "wears" may be better.
  • Fixed. bridies (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Capturing Earthlings involves rummaging for them bushes and trees, before pelting the antagonist with "jars" which imprison the Earthling." - I think there needs to be an "in" before "bushes and trees". Also, the object in the sentence is mentioned twice with different names; consider changing the last part to "before pelting the antagonist with jars to imprison them and return them to Earth".
  • Fixed. bridies (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Development

• The first instance of the first video game (ToeJam & Earl) should be wikilinked.
  • Done. bridies (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Is that all of the information out there for development? A game with that much anticipation would surely have been covered by many publications. You may have to dig through some old print sources.
  • Added another source and some more info. Generally though early 1990s sources don't offer much technical development info (being that they were aimed mainly at kids; the prose style also reflects this). These ones are noteworthy because they cover gameplay elements that ended up being ditched. bridies (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

After chewing over this for a while, I've decided that the article is comprehensive enough to pass GAN. However, if you want to take it any farther, I think more research will be necessary. Vantine84 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception and legacy

• I commend the use of an infobox, but there has to be more reliable reviews out there for both consoles.
  • I can't really find any more. There's a Gamepro review available on retromags but it's split into 2 zip files and I can't figure out how to work them. The Mobygames press list quotes from a Gamepro review, presumably that one, but then it's not reliably verifiable. Mobygames also lists an EGM review but that issue doesn't seem to available online. Mega and Mean Machines, the main UK publications, don't seem to have reviewed it and Google news turns up a lot less than it does for the first game. There may be a couple more VC reviews around (the Shacknews one for example) but it's a question of whether to add more rerelease reviews than those covering the original game. bridies (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Scores for the VC version are hard to come by anyways, it would seem. Vantine84 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Scores in the infobox should have an inline.
  • Done. bridies (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

External links

• Is there a website for the Virtual Console release?
  • Pretty sure there's not. bridies (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is on hold until these issues can be addressed. It has made a lot of progress since the first GAN. It will be on hold for one week or until all issues have been fixed. Let me know if you have any questions, and keep up the good work! Vantine84 (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has been passed. Good work! Vantine84 (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed claim of supporting research

"Research has suggested that a significant minority of fans favor ToeJam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron as the best in the series." I removed this section in the beginning of the article because it does not cite anything. --Jazz Remington (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC) It's sourced in the main body. See WP:LEAD bridies (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The source does not mention any research conducted by the developers, it only states their opinion on what the fans like. I removed the section again and re-wrote the writing in the main body to better reflect what the source says.--Jazz Remington (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Surveying fans is research, but now I notice that indeed the source in question does not explicitly mention them doing so. So I have cited the IGN source which does. Also added a secondary source (IGN poll). bridies (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed "Research by the game's developers said that a majority of fans preferred ToeJam & Earl" as the article, as cited, still does not state any research made by the developers.--Jazz Remington (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The article says: "They put out a call, not long after, to get feedback from their fans. They wanted to know whether they liked the first game or the second game, which characters were their favorites, what features they wanted to see… It's no surprise that fans clamored for a return to the series roots, and it only affirmed the way Johnson and Voorsanger already felt." Again, surveying fans is research. bridies (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ToeJam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820010704/http://wii.gamezone.com/gamesell/p32355.htm to http://wii.gamezone.com/gamesell/p32355.htm
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66gterabT?url=http://www.shacknews.com/article/47400/toejam-earl-in-panic-on to http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=394

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ToeJam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.gamespot.com/news/2460613.html?tag=result;title;4
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.gamespot.com/wii/action/toejamampearl2pof/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422050833/http://www.nintendo.com/wii/virtualconsole/games/detail/V93XWeje8rhOuuzHznMdzgWTE0XYdmlU to https://www.nintendo.com/wii/virtualconsole/games/detail/V93XWeje8rhOuuzHznMdzgWTE0XYdmlU

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)