Talk:Rayman (video game)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Nominator: NatwonTSG2 (talk · contribs) 23:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 09:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can take this one on. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NatwonTSG2:, I will add more soon but here are some initial comments!

Review[edit]

Has the nominator significantly contributed to the article? Yes, quite clear you've added a lot to the article.

Does the article conform to the general standards of WP:VG articles including the WP:VG/MOS? Yes, all good here:

The Development section's subsections are fine. If you wanted to simplify them further, you could break them down to 'Concept' and 'Design' but not a big deal!

Is the article generally well-written? Grammar needs a copyedit. I have the faintest hint that this could be because the article originally was transposed from the French version or had a multilingual editor, which is understandable! See below:

Commas and sentence flow are a tricky thing to get right. There's a few mistakes in this article where the commas get in the way of the flow of the sentence:

Lead P2 S1 - Can remove the comma.
Gameplay P1 S1 - Can remove the second comma.
Conception P2 S6 - A second comma is needed here after his in-game avatar. Alternately change to his in-game avatar Rayman and remove all commas.
Completion P2 S5 - Add a comma after announced and remove the one after however, or rewrite to were also announced but never released.

It's important to manage the tense, which should be the present tense. Past tense is only used for a gameplay section if the game is no longer playable:

Gameplay P1 S3 - gained to gains
Gameplay P1 S4 - included to include
Completion P2 S5 - replace has with had - obviously it's no longer considered lost if it has been discovered, so the tense needs to change.

There's a bunch of WP:LQUOTE punctuation issues. I used to fall afoul of this quite a lot. Make sure to only keep punctuation in the quotation marks if a complete sentence is being quoted.

Some other minor fixes:

- Gameplay P1 S1 - Omit it from which it
- Gameplay P1 S2 - Omit as from The player controls as
Gameplay P2 S1 - In each world ends is unclear. Perhaps: Completion of each world requires defeating a boss with special abilities at the end of the level.
Completion P1 S1 - Replace who with where or who he with and'.
Completion P1 S5 - Suggest inserting the Atari Jaguar, a console that
Release P1 S2 - Can remove the in which isn't necessary.
Reception P1 S4 - fifth=generation > fifth-generation
Reception P3 S1 - received mixed review - received mixed reviews or similar
Reception P4 S4 best visually games -> Something else - maybe most visually appealing. Best to check what the source actually said on this one.

Is the article broad enough in its coverage and contains reliable sourcing?

Out of nowhere there appears content about Rayman Advance which is not supported by information in the article. Is this a port or remake? Does its gameplay differ at all from the original title, and is there release information on it?

Do the sources cited verify the text in the article? Spot check TBA.

Are media and links properly attributed and do not have copyright issues? The images within the article appear to be attributed and licensed correctly.

Two screenshots in an article tends to be discouraged per the WP:VG/MOS, which states that additional screenshots are required to have stronger justification for their use, backed by third-party or secondary sources, regardless of what aspects of a game they show. Is the depiction of the SNES graphics of Rayman treated with detail in the article and sourcing? Is this justified adequately in the rationale for the image?

Any other personal opinions or miscellaneous feedback that may or may not be relevant to the nomination? See below:

Plot

As per WP:VGPLOT, you don't need to cite the game's basic plot on a specific point, as seems to be the case here. Can omit or put at the end. Manuals are also generally not seen as preferred sources if reliable secondary ones are available.

Development

Absolutely accept that Laura Kate Dale's book is a reliable source of commentary, but as we're looking for evidence of the game's development and not commentary, it it's far better to find a primary source on this: these magazines on the Internet Archive seem to mention the original concept.

Reception

As expressed in WP:QUOTE and WP:VG/REC, the quotes in this section are very long and opportunities to paraphrase. This section probably needs a rewrite to edit down the long quotes that appear in this section, which are considerable.

Also under WP:VGREC, many of the paragraphs imply a theme but are not explored. For instance, the second paragraph seems to be a collection of Jaguar reviews, and and not actually about what is implied by the first sentence. Other than the Advance version, it's probably best to focus on the key themes i.e. platforming gameplay, visuals and so on and organise comments from reviews about this.

The graphics received mixed review from reviewers is a tautology.

Legacy[edit]

...helped spawn a franchise that spawned is also a tautology

Suggest not mentioning Spooky Raymansion unless these are notable aspects of the coverage in the articles.

The Fans hoped and still hope for the game to become an official and canonical game has to go as unverifiable speculation. For one, the first two citations don't state that, with the Gipp source even dreading the encroaching beige of the prospect of a remake. The VK source is WP:USERG and at any rate inaccessible.

My question[edit]

For the details of the second screenshot of Rayman on SNES, it seems that the image was intended to illustrate and identify what the game originally looked like before development being pushed to the Jaguar. While when looking at it rationale, it seems that it used a video game emulator as a source and the fact that the image is demonstrate when necessary so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Doesn't seem like a problem really so happy to keep. Could you please let me know if you have actioned the above? Welcome to tick Y or ~~strike through~~ things to demonstrate this. I will try and get around to wrapping up the above as soon as I can. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you means by the above, isn't it the review in the top of the talk which It I doY or isn't it the good article nominations at the top so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as in, just to make it a little easier to see what you've done, could you tick or strike through the above comments if you've actioned them in the article? Thanks! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback so:

Lead P2 S1 - Y
Gameplay P1 S1 - Y
Conception P2 S6 - Y, ~~remove all commas~~
Completion P2 S5 - Y
Gameplay P1 S3 - Y
Gameplay P1 S4 - Y
Completion P2 S5 - Y
Gameplay P1 S1 - Y
Gameplay P1 S2 - Y
Gameplay P2 S1 - Y
Completion P1 S1 - ~~Replace who with where or who he with and~~
Completion P1 S5 - Y
Release P1 S2 - Y

NatwonTSG2 (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I'm sorry, I've been interstate. I'll take another review of the article and do a spot check. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I did fix those new changes at the top of the article, there are some fixes and questions like for Rayman Advance which it's a port to the original game, the mentioning of The Spooky Raymansion which i put it here since it unlikely for Rayman Redemption to explain on it Independent article and the information about the fans wanted the fan remake to became an official game is removed alongside with the two citations. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vrxces: This good article nomination has been inactive for over 14 days. Do you have any additional comments? 🌙Eclipse ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it's been quite a disruptive time; I'll address this tomorrow. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass[edit]

Deep apologies @NatwonTSG2: for the delay, I have been away for personal issues. There are still a lot of grammar and copyediting issues unfortunately; particularly noticeable in the Reception section. Not a problem and that's what this process is for, so no stress! But it does suggest more work is needed on the prose, for instance:

Release

P1 S1 - You can dispense with the comma.
P1 S3 - Was it called Rayman Advance for DSi and mobile? Otherwise suggest clarifying this sentence.
P2 S2 - Need to fix "It would grew"; suggest merging sentences given the same topic.
P2 S3 - Avoid contractions.
P2 S4 - Again, suggest merging these into one sentence as they are data points measuring the same thing.

Reception

This section still is a loose collection of reviews that don't really evidence the headlining sentences at all.

P1 S1 - "games of the year or any year" sounds like it's a direct quote and not a summary.
P1 S2 - "though noting a lack of" is awkward framing to start with, fix "pay ability" typo.
P1 S3 - this "ennobles the adolescence world of video games" is a direct quote, but doesn't make much sense at all without framing it as Strauss stating that the game may be the title that does so. At any rate, I feel like the focus is incorrect here; you could focus on his praise of the "lovingly-drawn" animation. He also isn't comparing the game to Snow White, he's saying that this game is doing what that film did for its respective medium.
P1 S4 - Suggest not starting with "Also"; i.e. Strauss also stated...
P1 S5 - Suggest leading with the review being the best system of the Jaguar. The quote's punctuation sits within the parentheses as you're quoting a full sentence.
P1 S6 - Remarking should be in past tense. This sentence needs a rewrite given the present tense and awkward structure. I think stating that Glide praised the "precise" controls is all you need here.

P2 S1 - "Despite the visual presentation of an acclaimed game" - could be clearer. Maybe something like Despite the innocent visual presentation of the game, many reviewers commented on its difficult gameplay. Also "critics and reviewers" is a bit tautological here.
P2 S2 - Unless you're quoting, use past tense: "was" not "is"; "paled" not "pales".
P2 S3 - "criticised"; also this is too direct a paraphrase, either quote it or summarise more generally. The text about players being "easily fooled" isn't informative; focus on what Hickman is criticizing the game for rather than the flourish of his prose. Also fix the typo in "it's lack interest" > "its lack of interest".

P3 S2 - This is basically a paraphrase of the whole review and is a very fraught sentence. Either focus on the aspects that support the headline about the graphics, or summarise i.e. Sengstack considered the game to feature "wonderfully clever" gaming elements, "engaging and humorous" characters and "terrific" music, although considering the game lacked frequent save paints. The point about the animation is a red herring; it's a pretty minor complaint! Also apropos of nothing there's a typo on Donkey Kong Country.
P3 S3 - Larry is not contradicting the previous review, which was largely positive, so a "however" isn't needed. Again, this seems like it's quoting the prose rather than summarising it.
P3 S4 - They don't seem to have called the game "impeccable" and it's a four-star review, so this is misleading. Suggest adding "with" to the quote if going for the WP:LONGQUOTE.

P4 S1 - "state" to past tense. This is a WP:LONGQUOTE and could be shortened or paraphrased.
P4 S2 - Again, this is a quote and not a paraphrase. You need to more generally identify what the review is praising or critiquing, or make it a quote.

Legacy

P1 S1 - "which spawn its sequels" -> suggest rephrasing, i.e. "spawned several sequels
P1 S2 - "ubisoft would used" -> "would use"
P2 S1 - "which said game features" -> there's no need for "said game" here
P2 S2 - The point about The Spooky Raymansion is still not really clear. Is the relevance that the developer previously created a Rayman fangame?
P2 S4 - "have" -> had; also what is this option? The phrase traumatized is editorialisation, keep it neutral.
P2 S5 - "add" -> "added"; also add new additions to it as well - this sentence is doubling down on the redundant use of additional qualifiers.

For the second pass, here what I done.

Reception

P1 S1 = Y
P1 S2 = Y
P1 S3 = Y
P1 S4 = Y
P1 S5 = N (This one doesn't really give me a clear vision so)
P1 S6 = Y
P2 S1 = Y
P2 S2 = Y
P2 S3 = Y
P3 S2 = Y
P3 S3 = Y
P3 S4 = Y
P4 S1 = Y
P4 S2 = Y

Legacy

P1 S1 = Y
P1 S2 = Y
P2 P1 = Y
P2 P2 = Y
P2 S4 = Y
P2 S5 = Y

NatwonTSG2 (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. Going at this section by section. Happy to work through this, but the number of mistakes and grammar issues really suggested it ideally needed a copyedit before nomination. I appreciate you actioning these. Also what was the issue with P1 S5? And the point about the headline statements is sort of still there. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]