Open main menu

Contents

GA ReviewEdit

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

Reviewer: TarkusAB (talk · contribs) 21:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


Older Japanese games are my thing. Before I take a closer look, I will say off the bat there are some passages missing sources (Gameplay, some of Legacy). Everything should be sourced. Other than that, I'll be taking a look at this soon, hopefully this weekend. TarkusABtalk 21:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I had a list of sources for each section and I forgot to add them to the gameplay section. I'll also need to add the sources I had for the PS Mobile version of City Connection rocket. I'll get to those soon. Namcokid47 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I've added sources for both sections you mentioned. I'll try add more of them if needed. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

OK. To save time, I will make what I consider to be minor, uncontroversial edits as I go through. Anything else I will note below. Revert anything I do if you disagree and we can discuss here.

GameplayEdit

  • There are still unsourced passages here. Everything should be sourced.
  • which will change in design throughout each stage - Is this that important to point out? Seems trivial to me.
  • "retract" means to withdraw or pull back in. it sounds like "extrude" is a better word
  • Gaming History (aka Arcade History) is an unreliable source per WP:VG/S and should be replaced throughout the article.

DevelopmentEdit

  • In North America, it was licensed out to Kitkorp to be released as Crusin’ - This makes it sound like it never came out. Did it come out? Reword as: In North America, it was licensed out to Kitkorp and released as Crusin’
  • The claim about Flahwalzer is not sourced.

ReceptionEdit

  • For the length of the reviews, the information here is surprisingly sparse. This whole can be fleshed out with much more detail on what in particular the critics liked and didn't like. Make sure to group comments by topic, not by critic.
  • You can't find any contemporary reviews from releases before the 3DS?
  • The second paragraph should come before the first because it's discussing earlier releases.
  • Mention the system each score is for in the score box. Also, since the scores are in the box, I moved the scores out of prose.
  • The second part in the Eurogamer quote about the 500 points burning a hole should be paraphrased.

LegacyEdit

  • NES and Famicom are the same thing for all intents and purposes here. Remove Family Computer in the first sentence.
  • The Family Computer release was included in the - Change to say the NES release. I understand why you wrote this but it's the same game and more confusing to someone unfamiliar with the history of the NES/Famicom.
  • PSX Data center does not appear to be a reliable source, should be replaced
  • These first two paragraphs would make more sense in a release section, before Reception. This will also do a better job at setting the context for the Reception section after it.
  • Note i-mode was not a service run by Jaleco. The way you mention it a couple times on the article as "Jaleco's i-mode storefront" makes it sound like they owned it. I fixed this.

LeadEdit

  • t was soon licensed to Kitkorp to be released in North America as Cruisin’. Same problem I mentioned before
  • Nothing here from reception. There should be a sentence or two summarizing the critical reception.
  • There is a lot of detail here on the re-releases. Trim some of this out to only what is important to know from a high level.
  • Platforms in the infobox should only be dedicated ports, not emulated versions.
  • Add release dates (or months, or years) for the platforms you narrow down to in the bullet above
  • The image should either be the Arcade flyer, or if that can't be found, the NES box art.

OtherEdit

Finally, here are some sources I found that are not used in the article. I will look for more and add any I find here:

Final commentsEdit

@Namcokid47: OK so those are my comments from a first pass. Overall it's not bad. My biggest concerns are the reception section can definitely be expanded, and there was also a couple unreliable sources that need to be replaced, and if they cannot, then that information needs to be removed. Ping me once you're finished making changes or have any questions and I will give it another look through. TarkusABtalk 15:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm not done with correcting everything yet (although I've managed to iron out most of them), but I've got a question for sources - would the Killer List of Video Games be a reliable source, or is that disallowed? Thanks. Namcokid47 (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
It's reliable. See WP:VG/S TarkusABtalk 09:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I originally looked through that list and didn't see it, but giving it another look I did find it listed on there. Thanks again, should make some of the unreliable sources easier to replace. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
TarkusAB Alright, I've finished making corrections to the article and ironing out all of the errors in the page. Namcokid47 (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Namcokid47: I will give it a proper second review this weekend. I did glance over it however and I think the Reception section is still not up to snuff. It needs a rewrite. Main concerns are:
  • Too many quotes. Quotes can be used occasionally when necessary but not pulled from every review. Paraphrase the quotes as much as you can.
  • It's just a list of critics and a comment they made back-to-back. IGN said this. GameSpot said this. 1UP.com said this. We try to avoid that.
  • It lacks detail. Just saying IGN criticized the controls, music and visuals is not enough information. What about the visuals did they dislike? Were the sprites crudely drawn? Were the backgrounds bland? Poor animation? I get they may not always provide details but these reviews look a decent length and so the briefness of this section here is striking.
I will tell you how I write Reception sections and maybe it will help you. First, read through each review and list comments they make. Like for example (making it up) GameSpot says the graphics were sharp and colorful; liked the animations on the enemies; felt the gameplay was addicting. Once you make a list of comments for each review, start writing the Reception section by weaving these comments together based on topic. For example, comments about graphics should be written together: "Some critics liked the graphics. GameSpot felt they were sharp and colorful. IGN agreed and commended the attention to detail on the character sprites. Though GameSpot liked the animation, Kotaku criticized it for being slow". This type of writing is much more fascinating, and you and the reader can draw a better conclusion on what the general consensus was on the game. TarkusABtalk 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Second read throughEdit

GameplayEdit

  • Some of the passages are not supported by the sources. For example, Nintendo Power does not mention anything about the stage looping or to clear stages by painting on pavement. Or another example, KLOV does not discuss that cats are invulnerable. There is more of this in this section. Try using the reviews to write this section, as they should be much better at providing the important gameplay details that are worth mentioning here. Also consider using the NES manual if needed. Anything that can't be sourced should be removed.

DevelopmentEdit

  • No comment

ReleaseEdit

  • Several ports of City Connection would be released for home platforms, such as the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), Famicom, ZX Spectrum and MSX. First, needs source(s). Second, were these all the home platform ports? Instead of saying "several...such as", just say these were the ports released. Be direct rather than vague.
  • A digital re-release was ported to the Wii Virtual Console in 2008 and later the 3DS and Wii U Virtual Console services in 2013. I imagine this was the emulated NES version? Mention that. Also needs sources.
  • published first by PCCW Japan then later re-published in 2004 by Jaleco. Unsourced
  • A 2003 mobile port, titled City Connection DX, was released for the Japanese i-mode online service. Unsourced

ReceptionEdit

  • See my comments under "Final comments"
  • Add Computer Entertainer score to the infobox
  • Fix the All Game score. You wrote 7/10 but the page says 3 and a half stars out of 5.

LegacyEdit

  • The game places Clarice as a spy for a secret organization to capture criminal leaders from around the world. Rather than painting sections of the road, Clarice must now collect briefcases placed in each stage whilst avoiding police cars and other types of enemies. Unsourced
  • The service closed in September 2015, delisting the game from the PlayStation Store and other supported devices. Can you find a better source like a news article than just the closed store?
  • Clarice would make an appearance as a playable character in GUNbare! Game Tengoku: The Game Paradise 2, misspelled as “Claris”, as well as the Sega Saturn re-release The Game Paradise Crusin’ Mix as downloadable content. Neither of these claims are supported by the sources.
  • The rights to City Connection are currently owned... Can you show me where in the source this is mentioned?

Lead and InfoboxEdit

  • Will wait to review lead until we can get the body in good shape
  • Source on the composer?
  • Some of the release dates are unsourced. If it's mentioned and sourced in prose it's all good, but that's not the case for all of them.

Second Review, Final CommentsEdit

  • I went through and fixed a bunch of refs that were missing author names, missing dates, or otherwise formatted incorrectly. Please note that "date=" and "accessdate=" are not the same thing. "Date=" is the date it was published (more useful), while "accessdate=" is the date you accessed the page (useless in most cases). Also, when you call a ref more than once, you can just do what I did for Nintendo Power and put a backslash at the end of the ref mark so you're not repeating all the information again.
  • As you can see above, I found a lot of passages that shared information that was not supported by the sources. That's not acceptable for a GA-class article so it needs to be fixed.
  • @Namcokid47: TarkusABtalk 21:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Namcokid47: Hey haven't seen a reply and seen littly activity on the article. Just curious if you plan on continuing with this review or not? I'm fine with waiting if it's in your plans. Thanks. TarkusABtalk 17:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm really, really sorry, I've been mainly working on a bunch of other projects both in and outside Wikipedia. I've added and fixed several of the sources brought up in your second review, and I intend to complete the Reception section today. Thank you. Namcokid47 (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Namcokid47: Hey I just came off a month long wikibreak. I haven't seen any progress on these items. Do you intend to make these improvements within the next week? If not, I will close the nomination and you can re-nominate again when you're ready. TarkusABtalk 00:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I'd say closing the nomination is best, considering the rather lackluster effort I've done to the page for a while. Plus I've been nominating other articles (notably Xevious), which I'd wish to focus more on than this page. Once that stuff is cleared out I'll fix this page up and renominate it again. Sincere apologies as if I wasted time....which I likely did. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
          • As long as you're reading and understanding my comments, and actively trying to put it into practice in your future writing, it's not a waste of my time. Some of the same comments I'm making could apply to your other Good Article nominations. You will probably see other reviewers bring up the same points. Best of luck. TarkusABtalk 00:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
            • Your comments have been sincerely helpful, mainly those relating to the Reception section, which I'd definitely used to improve for my other pages. I greatly appreciate it. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Plot infoEdit

I looked into the conflicting different backstories of this game a while back. The information I submitted is at: http://gaminghell.co.uk/CityConnection.html which essentially reports the plot differences between regions/versions/releases.

  • Japan Arcade & PS4 - looking for the ideal man
  • Japan Famicom & Wii VC - wants to travel every highway in the world
  • Spanish MSX - painting to make the roads more colorful
  • USA & 3DS VC - male thief on the run from the police

There's also extra information on that page that may be of use. Nice work on the article! Mattsephton (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC) aka gingerbeardman

GamingHell is not listed as being reliable on this page, which is why I didn't include information from there, as much as I like that website. I should seriously fix up the rest of the issues though, it's been weeks since I've made any major edits to it.Namcokid47 (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to "City Connection/GA1" page.