Talk:ToeJam & Earl III: Mission to Earth/GA2

GA Review

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

Expect my full review of this article in a day or two. Until then, you should check out the game's two print reviews at the Online print archive, and this Xbox Nation Magazine interview with Greg Johnson. They should all improve the article. One other thing: you might remove the GameZone and TeamXbox reviews, since GameZone can be replaced with the more reliable reviews above, and TeamXbox is basically IGN. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

On Hold

Review:

• I said before that GameZone could be replaced by the above sources, but I see now that you are using the review as a reference throughout the article. I recommend minimizing its use, if possible, but keeping it for facts stated nowhere else.
• The biggest problem is the prose, which is consistently rough. At Wikipedia:Good article nominations, it says that reviewers are encouraged to contribute to the article; therefore, I'll copyedit it for you, as I did with ToeJam & Earl.
• The first paragraph of Gameplay would be better suited for a "Synopsis"-type section, as you did with ToeJam & Earl. In such a section, be sure to mention the game's ending, and elaborate further on its plot setup, if possible.

  I'm afraid I don't know what happens in the end and it's not available on Youtube or any where else I can find. It would be nice to have it but not essential for GA in my opinion. There doesn't seem to be much plot in general other than the opening cut scene detailing the premise. The GameSpot review has a summary. bridies (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  You're probably right. You'll need to get your hands on that information if you plan on FAC, but it should be fine for a GA. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• The article contains many quotes that should be paraphrased. Worst offenders: "demented chicken", "psycho cheerleaders" and "ninja rabbits"; "rumors buzzed all throughout the Saturn era of a new TJ&E"; "struck a deal"; "all the same stuff but just better graphics"; "too old school". Also, quotation marks are used in cases where they are simply unnecessary, even without paraphrasing. Examples: "Anti-Funk", "hubs", "mixed reviews". You should also paraphrase as many quotes in Reception as possible.

  To be honest I'm not sure how to paraphrase "demented chicken", "psycho cheerleaders" and "ninja rabbits" without losing some of intended tone of the original prose... bridies (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah. There was a similar problem with ToeJam & Earl. I'll paraphrase "ninja rabbits" to "rabbit ninja" (since "ninja" is both singular and plural) during the copyedit, and drop the issue other than that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any more information available about Latisha's creation? "Johnson and Voorsanger indicated the development of a new character with a working title of ToeJam, Earl, and Latisha" is just not enough detail.

  I've added some more development information from the Xbox Nation interview, including a snippet about Latisha. In general though, there really doesn't seem to be much and critics were very indifferent to her. EGM for example says: "The new playable character, Latisha, is stereotypical and unnecessary (the game is ToeJam & Earl, remember?)". bridies (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  If there isn't anything to add, then I can't ask for it. The new piece of information about her voice actress fleshes it out a little, anyway. If you could also include a mention of who they went with instead, that'd be great. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  Genevieve Goings - Richfife (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  Urk! Sherrie Jackson. Goings did all the other female voices, Jackson did Latisha. My bad. - Richfife (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• The Reception sections will need a few changes. To start with, the GameZone and Eurogamer reviews are given too much weight; they both get a half-paragraph of coverage. Cut down on those, and replace TeamXbox with the more notable Official Xbox Magazine review (available here), since both are positive. Also, since 1up's review is only used as a review score, and EGM, OXM and GameNOW are all Ziff Davis magazines anyway, remove it. GameNOW can replace it as a positive review score, but make sure to also give it some prose coverage. For video game (rather than computer game) articles, I consider Electronic Gaming Monthly and Game Informer to be the most important review sources, and rarely support articles that do not include one or both. I linked to EGM above, but you'll have to get Game Informer from the Reference library. Metacritic claims that the review appears in GI's November 2002 issue; three people have access to this issue. Mitaphane often takes awhile to respond, so I recommend trying the other two first.

  Added the Game Informer and EGM reviews. I've requested the Official Xbox Magazine review but no reply as yet. bridies (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  The Reception section is looking good; once OXM is in there, it'll be perfect. I'll get to a copyedit of the entire article tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Extra note: The box shot's rationale needs to be improved, and the image reduced in size.

Reviewer: JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Box art's fair use has been improved but someone needs to re-upload it to a size somewhere between 250px-300px. Salavat (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've passed the article. The two remaining points (OXM review, mention of final Latisha voice actress) aren't big enough to keep the article back. I assume that you'll add them, anyway, when you get your hands on the information. Keep up the good work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)