Wikipedia:Peer review/Game Boy/archive1

Game Boy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it feels well-written and referenced, but it recently failed a GA nomination. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is very good because it provides a detailed introduction from the development to the sales of Game Boy, compares it with other competitors, and points out the advantages of Game Boy, which can provide great help to confused consumers.ZHANG0822ZH (talk) 10 June 2024(UTC)

Kusma

Will make some comments soon. —Kusma (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: might even be more interesting to state it was the best selling console at the time than that it is by now only number four.
Development: maybe explain in a sentence or so what "Game & Watch" was
Try to combine paragraphs into longer units that flow better instead of the short stubby paragraphs.
Yamauchi rejected the TN technology as too hard to see the technology was hard to see? Or do you mean it was too hard to see something on the screen? (I find it difficult to this day to see anything on the screen of a Gameboy Color, but that's not the article's fault).
Okada had worked on an electronic game [...], he thought it would be possible if you must put this in one sentence, separate the parts with a semicolon. Better split it up into shorter sentences.
The Game Link cable was generally used for various mutiplayer activities (I remember playing multiplayer Tetris), not just for Pokemon.
Okada pushed to make development tools available for third-party developers, a shortcoming of the launch of the NES if you want to say that the third-party developer tools for the NES were not yet available when it launched, you need to add a few words. Or do you mean that tools were available for the NES and it was bad for its launch?
How much did the original Game Boy cost when it was introduced?
Technical specifications: we haven't been told about the Game Boy Pocket and Game Boy Light yet in the body, so their appearance in the table is a bit of a surprise. Why is the Game Boy Color missing here? In a comparative table it would be good to have it.
There is also nothing on the Game Boy Color in the "Revision" section.
Launch titles: what about Europe?
Reception: the Game Boy's lower price along with longer battery life made it much more such much more what?
There is a "Critical reception" and a "sales" subsection. Most of the "critical reception" subsection is about sales.
There is actually extremely little critical reception here. The lead section claims it was a "cultural icon of the 1990s"; this does not seem to be substantiated in the body.
Sources: do not cite Wiktionary. You can link to it inline, but it is not a usable WP:RS.
Why is Rodrigo Copetti's website a reliable source?
Why is RealBoy Emulator Blog a reliable source?
GameBoy Development Wiki is not a reliable source.
Game Boy Owner's manual pictures on Flickr might be copyvio, and it may be better to cite a secondary source
I notice that the sourcing was also brought up at the GA review. This really needs to be improved if you want the article to become GA.

It is not a bad article, but sourcing and prose need improvements, and there is too little on reception and cultural impact. —Kusma (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]