Talk:WarioWare: Touched!/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TarkusAB (talk · contribs) 04:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking this up. ~ P*h3i (📨) 05:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

The more common spelling is minigame. This should replace "mini-game" across the article, unless there's something I'm missing.

I don't really know how you're gaging common spelling, but I'll replace them anyway. I don't really have a preference.

Go with the spelling in the title of the target article when in doubt or when both spellings are used relatively consistently.

Since an exclamation mark is in the title, it should be included whenever mentioned. For example: "Touched! introduced touchscreen and microphone controls..."

Done.

Touched introduced touchscreen and microphone controls to the WarioWare series; all microgames can only be controlled with either of the two.[1] The controls became a staple in later series entries, particularly on handheld consoles.[2] The first sentence here should be moved to the top of the second paragraph. The second sentence should be deleted because it's mentioned in Legacy and fits better there.

Done.

Plot

Having played this game before, I know how little the plot actually matters to this game. This just reads as a summary of the opening cinematic. The amount of plot discussed in the article should be proportional to its coverage in sources. Honestly, this premise should be summed up in a sentence or two and inserted near the beginning of the gameplay section. See what I did at Sonic the Fighters for example.

I agree, but with the example you've given with Sonic the Fighters, the two seamlessly integrate, while with this article, the plot as you've said is pretty much entirely irrelevant, especially to the gameplay. Should I just remove the plot entirely instead?

I'd be OK with that

Done.

Development and release

The teams working on the games were split in two; one to work on Twisted and the other to work on Touched Suggested edit: The team working on Twisted! was split in two; one to continue work on Twisted and the other to begin Touched!.

Suggestion applied.

The game was developed by Intelligent Systems and Nintendo SPD, and published worldwide by Nintendo. The first part of the sentence should lead off the development section. The "published by Nintendo" part would work better mixed with the next sentence here.

Done.

Touched was produced by Yoshio Sakamoto and Ryoichi Kitanishi and directed by Goro Abe, Taku Sugioka and Teruyuki Hirosawa. The game's music was composed by Masanobu Matsunaga and Yashuhisa Baba. This sentence would be better placed when you're talking about the game development, not after you talked about its release.

Moved to middle.

Controversy

This should be removed. I'm not sure if the source is reliable or not, and it's just trivia. It's not like it actually generated any true controversy.

From what I could find, Nintendo made an apology in Nintendo Power issue 193, which I think would be enough to grant it a "controversial" status, but as both of the users that are able to supply the issue on Wikipedia ref library are either inactive or have lost access, and 193 was not included in the archive on archive.org while it was still active, I couldn't actually get my hands on it. Unless you know other means I can get it, it is removed.

It should be removed until we can secure the source and verify the contents. It's a big claim to call something controversial so you need big evidence. It could be a heartfelt page long apology, or a tongue-in-cheek: "Hey check this out. Sorry! Don't think much of it." We can't say "controversy" because that would imply some type of public dispute or disagreement, but there is no evidence of back lash from the public here. And I believe it's Nintendo's nature to apologize for something like that even if there was no anger or negative comments from the public about it.

Understood, removed.

Reception

Most critics of the game praised its quick-paced nature and humor, but criticized its brevity. Needs at least 3 or 4 sources.

Will do when rewritten.

I hate to say this but I think the second paragraph needs to be rewritten. It follows the "A said B. C said D." formula which makes for a rough flow and more difficult to read. Write it more in a way to place similar comments near each other: "Critics praised the game's quick nature. A said this about it, and B said this. A and C thought the game's humor was great, with C arguing that blah blah blah" See what I did at Radiant Silvergun for example. Writing it this way helps the reader wee what critics agreed on and what were the most common points of commendation or criticism.

I understand what you mean. Could you give a better example though? Radiant Silvergun is all positive and no negative.

Knuckles' Chaotix. Just group together comments by what they're discussing versus who the comment is from or whether it was positive or negative. Like Graphics, gameplay, particular game elements, whatever.

Wikilink the publication names/websites if an article exists.

Will do when rewritten.

GameRankings should not be used if Metacritic is present per VG guidelines

It's alright in the reception table though right?

No it's redundant. WP:VG/REC: Only consider including GameRankings in when a Metacritic score is unavailable (e.g., older games).

Done.

Legacy

No comments here

Lead

The lead might need some rewriting. It has no information about the game's development, and nothing about the legacy. I've found it best to describe the game in the first paragraph, talk about development/release in the second, and reception/legacy in the third. Or get creative with two paragraphs, whatever works, but I've found that flow to work best.

Done (wow I was having a lot of trouble with the lead and now it looks 3x better, thanks). Should I do Wii U Virtual Console or Wii U Virtual Console?

The former, the latter is more of an WP:EASTEREGG

Other

Optional: I recommend archiving your sources. It's very easy to do because a bot will run it for you. Let me know if you need help and I'll show you how.

Done.

Images have correct rationale, good
No Copyvio detections, good

Overall not too bad, but it needs some re-org in a couple spots. Once comments have been addressed, I will take another look! :) TarkusAB^talk 00:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! It's good to have a fellow WarioWare fan be the reviewer. Just need some clarifications for the reception and some other assorted stuff. ~ P*h3i (📨) 20:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I responded above TarkusAB^talk 14:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will work on reception re-write when I have time. ~ P*h3i (📨) 04:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Sorry, I've been really busy this week. I'm rewriting reception now but it might take some time, I'll probably have it done by the end of today. ~ P*h3i (📨) 22:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm not in any particular rush. TarkusAB^talk 01:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reception has been re-written. Are there any problems with it? ~ P*h3i (📨) 05:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @P*h3i: Reception is better, but I don't think it is quite there yet:

A suggestion: Read through each review, and make bullet points on their thoughts and copy out any good quotes. Once done, you'll have a list of what elements reviewers tended to discuss more. From here, base the paragraphs on those elements, with specifics and quotes sprinkled in. Don't just default to making the theme of one paragraph gameplay, and the other graphics, one audio, etc. Sometimes that works but not always.
These were my key concerns that brought me to the above suggesstion:
- In the second paragraph, it says that they found the game addictive, creative, and fun, but doesn't tell us why. Need some details on exactly what the critics enjoyed.
- For the third paragraph, when you start off saying the visuals and audio were praised, it sounds like you're talking about fidelity. I think the critics were talking more about the wackiness and creativity of the art style and music, and I think that would make a more interesting and appropriate topic to discuss.
- No where here is the game's charm/uniqueness discussed. Harris talks about it: "The enormous creative freedom is what really gives this game its charm..." Eurogamer talks about it: "This kind of infectious lovable humour has always made us want to evangelise WarioWare..." I didn't bother checking the other sources, but I'm sure others commented on it.

Writing the reception section is honestly the most difficult and time consuming portion of writing an article. But once you learn how to do it, it becomes much easier. TarkusAB^talk 04:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written the section once again. Any other issues? ~ P*h3i (📨) 04:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Unbelievably better. I think one of the interesting points you mention is how Gertsmann says that many of the methods to complete the minigames are too similar, and Kosmina says that some minigames are too similar to gameplay in other early DS titles. With this being an early DS title, it's fascinating from a historical perspective to see the concern journalists had that the touchscreen gimmick of the system may not offer as wide a variety of gameplay possibilities as they imagined. Very interesting.

Pass, nice job. TarkusAB^talk 10:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! The article is a lot better now. :) ~ P*h3i (📨) 11:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]