Talk:Plants vs. Zombies (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. I've not played it, and it doesn't really appeal, but I recognise that it's an important and influential game. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• You mention the columns but then move on to talk about the abilities of the plants and zombies -- it'd be helpful if you could talk about the significance of the grid at first mention!
  •  Done Lazman321 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• "clicking on ones that randomly generate over the lawn" Ones? What is being described, here? Little coins? A sun symbol?
  •  Done I was mentioning sun. Coins weren't even brought up at this point in the section. Lazman321 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• In the gameplay section, you're inconsistent in how you name the tools in the game. Is it, for example, a Pool Cleaner, a pool cleaner, or a "pool cleaner"? I don't have a strong opinion, I just think you should be consistent. (This continues later in the article, too, and I also note you're inconsistent on whether it's Adventure Mode, Adventure mode, or adventure mode. And you sometimes use "Quotes" for game modes, sometimes don't!)
  •  Done I removed the quotes from the tools and adopted a consistent naming convention for each mode. Lazman321 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• "and Crazy Dave choosing three of the plants" I don't follow
  •  Done I made it clear that Crazy Dave at the beginning of each level in each subsequent run of Adventure mode, he randomly selects three of the plants. Lazman321 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Aliens would come into top tank to fight defensive and stacked fish and the bottom tank would be resource manager that would function similar to original game" I don't really follow this.
  •  Comment: Do you have an idea of a better way to write this. Read the source. Lazman321 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reading the "Concept" section, I was left feeling that the idea of the seed packets and the choosing of plants a the start of the level hadn't really been conveyed to me in the gameplay section. This might be my problem, but perhaps it's worth looking again?
  •  Done Made the plant selection more clear in the gameplay section. Lazman321 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Fan stated that every game he worked on had only him designing the prototype, adding that he used to draw a lot before he made games, where he made pixel art." I'm struggling with this sentence. I'm not sure what is meant by "first plants" in the following sentence, either.
  •  Done Straight up ditched the first sentence as it would be more appropriate for an article about George Fan. Remove "first" from the next sentence. Lazman321 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• The zombie temp story's great, but I think you could explain it a little more clearly!
  •  Done Explained it according to its source.
• I think you'll need to mention that Residential Evil is a pun on Resident Evil. (Is Bloom & Doom a pun? Specifically a reference to Doom, perhaps?)
  •  Not done The source doesn't say that Residential Evil is a pun on Resident Evil. Mentioning the pun would be original research. Also, no. Bloom & Doom is not a pun. I believe it's just a fun and silly phrase.

Stopping there. Not bad so far, but the writing could be a bit clearer in places. Please double check my edits so far! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I believe that I have addressed all the issues in your first set. Many of your copy-edits are fine, but there are some noticeable errors you made including adding an additional "]" in the lead. You also said that the player defends "around the house" even though the player only defends one area at a time so I felt like that addition was misleading. Lazman321 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't understand the reference to the Umbrella Leaf (was that included in the game or not? Were the bungee zombies?) so I tried to check the reference, but the link was dead. COuld you look into this? The article may still be accessible elsewhere or through the Internet Archive.
  •  Done: Removed the url-status=live variable and made it clear that the Umbrella Leaf and the zombies were included in the final game.
• "Originally, the dancing zombie resembled Michael Jackson from the short film "Thriller"" I'm unclear about the reference to the zombie, and you're referring to a music video rather than a short film (though, of course, lines blur). Shouldn't that be Dancing Zombie? And why are you mentioning a type of zombie that is included immediately after talking about zombies that aren't included? Generally, in this characters section, I think you need to say a little more (or at least say first) about the characters that were included, and then talk about some that weren't.
  •  Done: Rearranged parts of the section and changed short film tomusic video for. I don't know how to make the reference clearer for you.
• " The song "Ultimate Battle" also appears in the game Melolune." This feels out of place. Also, the following sentence refers to "this game", and it's unclear which game is meant.
  •  Done: Removed the sentence and replace {!xt |the game}} with {xt |Plants vs. Zombies}}.
• The article is a little confusing when it comes to the Fan/Shigihara relationship. In one place, you call Shigihara Fan's girlfriend; in another, you talk about him approaching her after following her for years.
  •  Done: Made their relationship clear.
• What does "organic sounds" mean in this context?
  •  Comment: I don't know. Making a guess would be original research. I will be putting it in quotation marks for now.
• Who thought it was an April Fools joke?
  •  Done: The citation says that many PC gamers initially thought that the music video was an April Fools joke.
• "The trailer was noted by The Escapist and Rock, Paper, Shotgun, which announced the game on April 24, 2009, which promoted the Zombatar Creator that allowed the player to create a zombie face that would be used as the face of the flag zombie,[39][40] though this was not used until the "Game of the Year Edition" of Plants vs. Zombies." There's too much going on here, I fear. Too much detail, and too much going on in one sentence. (Also, check the capitals on "flag zombie".)
  •  Done: Just merged the information into the second paragraph.
• "PopCap Games has stated that they would be porting Plants vs. Zombies to other platforms right around when Plants vs. Zombies was being released." Very strange way of saying this -- streamline!
  •  Done
• "n March 25, 2010, Emily Rose of PadGadget revealed that the updated iTunes interface included upcoming game titles including ports of iPhone games for the iPad, with Plants vs. Zombies being one of them. If the upcoming games are clicked, an error message will appear, saying "the item you've requested is not currently available in the US store".[54] This was noted by IGN and Business Insider.[55][56]" Is this important?
  •  Comment: Yes, it is the first indication of the iPad version being released. There was no announcement that I could find before the release of the port.
• "The main difference between the DS version and the DSiWare version is that the in the DSiWare version, all of the game modes; except the four exclusive mini-games from the DS version and a new mini-game, "Zombie Trap"; were removed." First, that's not how semi-colons work! Second, how can all the game modes be removed? What is there left if there are no game modes?
  •  Done: Rewritten for clarity.
• "Nathan Meunier of GamesRadar+ believes that the PlayStation Vita port is not too much different from the other ports.[95]" So what?
  •  Done: Just removed the sentence altogether.
• "Marc Saltzman from Gamezebo finding humor in the many ways to kill the zombies."<" Is this a direct quote? I can't make sense of the quote marks!
  •  Done: Must've been a typo. I removed the quotation mark.
• Could you revisit the paragraph on the reception of the ported versions? I think it could be a little more readable.
  •  Comment: I don't know how I could make it more readable. The best I can do is remove the opening statement.
• Do we need all the details of the rumours about why Fan was laid off?
  •  Comment: Yes, as there is no George Fan article, and this is all put for an understanding of Fan's removal from PopCap Games.
• "can be bought using in-game currency or from certain zombies.[147]" You can buy it from zombies?
  •  Done: No you cannot. I was referring to the fact that defeating zombies that are glowing green can give the player plant food.
• " It was released at an early access state that same date." What does this mean?
  •  Comment: You don't know what early access means? I am definitely linking the term in the article then. It means that the game was released in an unfinished state for testing purposes before the game's official release date.
• "According to Metacritic, all the sequels and spin-offs of Plants vs. Zombies received generally positive reviews,[164] with the exception of the Xbox 360 version of Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare which received mixed reviews,[165] Plants vs. Zombies Adventures which did not get assigned a metascore,[166] and Plants vs. Zombies 3 which does not have an entry as of January 2021." I don't know how useful this is -- too much detail!
  •  Done: Just removed the extra information of the exceptions and just put near the beginning, with a few exceptions.
• I'd like to hear more about the comics, but I won't demand it for GA purposes!
  •  Comment: This will definitely be one of my priorities for a future FAC nomination. The comics are a bit obscure. Most I could probably add is a synopsis using the comic books as primary sources, though the problem is that I don't own the comic books. There may be some in a graphic novel section of a library in town, but that is about it.

OK, that's my first read-through. Sorry it was a little bitty. I'll look closely at the sources and images in due course. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe I have responded and addressed all the issues in the second set. Can't wait for the third set of issues or a pass. Lazman321 (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the sources...

• What makes Padagadget reliable? I note that the content sourced to it felt (to me) like it bordered on the trivial. (You can expect lots of questions like that at FAC!)
  •  Comment: After the discovery by Padgadget, the iPad port leak was noted by many organizations including IGN, Engadget, Gamezebo, and CNet. Many of them credited Padgadget for the finding and likely saw for themselves. It isn't trival. I will rewrite the sentence to be more backed up by IGN and Engadget, and remove the Business Insider source.

Mentioning some things because you mentioned FAC...

• Formatting for the source to Shinigara's blog is a bit off. I do think it'd be worth you moving through the references and checking if there are any unwarranted uses of italics. I spotted 123, 124, and 125 with some issues, for example -- but then 126 doesn't italicise the name of a magazine! No publisher on 170... You can expect lots of questions about this sort of thing at FAC!
  •  Done: with issues with citations 34 (attempt), 126, and 170.  Comment: While in all other cases, italics would not be used on the name of the website, in citations 123, 124, or 125, the website is being used in a citation. Because it is required by WP:CS1 to use the name of the website in the website or work parameter, the website has to be italicized in the citation.
    • I have never looked at WP:CS1, so I've no opinion on what it does or does not say, but it does not supersede the MOS. Again, I'm not too fussed about this for GAC purposes, but you can expect people looking closely at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• You cite someone called "Shaw Leonard", but I'm guessing it's Leonard Shaw? And the link's dead -- the site has been taken down.
  •  Done: by removing the url-status=live. It is "Shaw Leonard".
• I am getting a lot of hits on Google Scholar. You're going to need to dig into the scholarly literature. I realise this creates new challenges if you're used to more typical video games sources, but this is a question that I would certainly be asking at FAC.
  •  Comment: This argument I have seen in FAC reviews before. I will take a look at the scholarly sources, but if the information is already backed up by the traditional gaming sources, there is no point in adding them.
    • If you say so. A lot of the hits don't look that useful. It'd be great if you could find some scholarly work placing it in the context of zombie fiction more broadly (and/or casual gaming more broadly), but I don't know how realistic that is -- a lot of the hits aren't actually to published papers, or they're to papers published in suspicious-looking journals. There's a chapter on the game's music in this book that will surely be worth citing, but that's the most interesting thing I saw on my (admittedly cursory) search. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • @Josh Milburn: Unfortunately, I don't have access to the source. I did like the source you picked though as this could expand the soundtrack sub-section of the development section. As a result, I have submitted a request for someone that does have access to look at the chapter for any information to add on WP:RX. I am also applying through WP:The Wikipedia Library access to Taylor & Francis's website to have access to that book and this book I found. I will definitely add the sources in once I have access to them. I have looked through Google Scholar and I don't know if I can find anything useful out of them. Lazman321 (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
        • @Josh Milburn: Finally added the information from your listed source. I believe the review is over, or at least almost over. Lazman321 (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
          • That's great! I do want to have another read through the article; I'll hopefully get to that soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No concerns about the images. I want to read through the article again, though; I feel like there were some passages that made for quite tricky reading. (And, of course, I am not ignoring your comments above.) While the requirements at GAC are much lower than at FAC, they're still fairly high! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Josh Milburn: I have addressed your third set of issues. Lazman321 (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• "If zombies reach the right edge of the lane" I thought the zombies advanced right to left? So wouldn't this be left edge? And why "may"? Is the lawnmower not automatic? Are they not always there?
  •  Done: The statement of zombies reaching the right edge instead of the left must've been a mistake. Thank you.  Comment: What do you mean by "may". Using an in-page search from the browser, with the exception of within the date parameters of the citations, there is no "may" in the gameplay section.
    • Sorry -- I meant how zombies can be taken out by the mower. I read this as meaning they aren't always. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
      •  Done: Changed "can be" to "are". Lazman321 (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• "According to PopCap, the iOS release of Plants vs. Zombies sold more than 300,000 copies in the first nine days it was available on the App Store, generating more than $1M in gross sales, and considered it "the top-grossing iPhone launch"" The grammar is off. Who considered it the best top-grossing launch? PopCap? Perhaps it would be worth splitting this sentence.
  •  Done: Split apart the sentence.
• "The iPhone port of Plants vs. Zombies was commended for being faithful to the PC version and addition of quick play mode, but were disappointed by the lack of most of the game-modes" I don't understand. Who was disappointed?
  •  Done: Clarification.
• What is "the flag meter"?
  •  Done: Changed the statement to what the flag meter is supposed to do.

Stopping there. The article is looking much stronger. I still think the writing is a good bit below what is expected at FAC, but I do think it's approaching GA-level. I made some changes; please double-check them. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Josh Milburn: Finished with your fourth set of issues. I looked your copyedits and they are pretty good. Thank you. Lazman321 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy to promote the article at this time. I think you're probably going to want a few more pairs of eyes on it before FAC, though; I suspect the writing will not be that well received there! In any case, I'm pleased to see we have a decent article on the game, and commend you for the time you've put into it! Great working with you. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)