Joe Danger edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this to get it up to FA. So far it's hit GA and I reckon it's pretty close by now to the target, but I'd like some pointers on how to improve this further. Thanks very much for any help you can offer. — Joseph Fox 16:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comments from Jappalang
Lede
"Joe Danger is a racing/platform video game .... Joe Danger is a 2½D side-scroller ..."- I fear these sentences might confuse the common reader. He or she would likely not know what is a "platform" game (though "racing" is a recognizable description), worse would be "2½D side-scroller"... (even the casual gamer would not likely understand that term).
- "Racing", "platform" and "2½D" are all wikilinked; I don't understand how else I can expand on this without going into the absurd.
- Wikilinks do not help. A confusing term is introduced and we expect the reader to go read that article and come back. The reader might not come back. He or she might encounter another article that is more interesting, or worse than that, one that is full of obtuse terms and explanations, is dead boring, or again expects the reader to go to another article. In the bad scenario, the reader disregards the whole entire path of articles. It would be more effective to cast terminologies in the proper context or to coach an explanation in the text alongside the words. Let the readers visit the links if they want to learn more, not force them to go and never come back. Peppering an article with awkward complex terminologies is not really helpful to the reader and an obstacle to achieving the "engaging, brilliant prose of professional standard" requested at FAC. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- So how might I explain "platform" in this context? I can hardly say "Joe Danger is a racing/platform (which is a genre in which characters jump on platforms to progress) video game...". It is explained in the article proper what a platform game is, and more importantly how Joe Danger can be labelled as such. As for "2½D", I believe I got that term from Limbo (video game) who seem to have gotten away with it. I will remove this for the time-being.
- Do not judge just by one FA alone (sometimes FAs are promoted without a more broader reviewer base). One could try to eliminate confusing jargon as much as possible (shameless self-promotion: take a look at Sacrifice).
- That said, "Joe Danger is a video game published by Sony Computer Entertainment in June 2010 for its PlayStation 3 console. It is also British independent games developer Hello Games's first title. Joe Danger combines the features of racing and platform games. The player controls the titular daredevil, whose objective is to complete obstacle courses on his motorcycle under a time limit. The game is presented in a light-hearted, comic way, and gives focus to performing stunts and maintaining speed." would be my suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- That still uses the problematic "platorm game" phrase? It also wasn't published by Sony, "Hello Games's" just looks ugly and raises the question of "s or no s" that's easier to avoid, and gives the impression that completing courses under a time limit is the only objective (when one can see in "Gameplay" that it plainly is not). I've tried a different wording, regardless.
- It is not problematic when placed in context (the following details about the courses). In this way, we avoid distracting the reader with jargon at the start (introduce by saying said is a game, then talking just a bit later on what sort of a game with details that flesh out the "sort of game"). I would think of it as "it is easier to club someone on the head when you get them to focus on a handshake and come in closer, rather than brandishing your club openly and have them run off." In other words, lead them in with more common words before introducing them to complex terms (or have the terms next to easier to understand words). Jappalang (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- That still uses the problematic "platorm game" phrase? It also wasn't published by Sony, "Hello Games's" just looks ugly and raises the question of "s or no s" that's easier to avoid, and gives the impression that completing courses under a time limit is the only objective (when one can see in "Gameplay" that it plainly is not). I've tried a different wording, regardless.
- So how might I explain "platform" in this context? I can hardly say "Joe Danger is a racing/platform (which is a genre in which characters jump on platforms to progress) video game...". It is explained in the article proper what a platform game is, and more importantly how Joe Danger can be labelled as such. As for "2½D", I believe I got that term from Limbo (video game) who seem to have gotten away with it. I will remove this for the time-being.
- Wikilinks do not help. A confusing term is introduced and we expect the reader to go read that article and come back. The reader might not come back. He or she might encounter another article that is more interesting, or worse than that, one that is full of obtuse terms and explanations, is dead boring, or again expects the reader to go to another article. In the bad scenario, the reader disregards the whole entire path of articles. It would be more effective to cast terminologies in the proper context or to coach an explanation in the text alongside the words. Let the readers visit the links if they want to learn more, not force them to go and never come back. Peppering an article with awkward complex terminologies is not really helpful to the reader and an obstacle to achieving the "engaging, brilliant prose of professional standard" requested at FAC. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Racing", "platform" and "2½D" are all wikilinked; I don't understand how else I can expand on this without going into the absurd.
- I fear these sentences might confuse the common reader. He or she would likely not know what is a "platform" game (though "racing" is a recognizable description), worse would be "2½D side-scroller"... (even the casual gamer would not likely understand that term).
"The game was released on the PlayStation Network in June 2010 after Hello chose to publish solely with Sony Computer Entertainment."- This sentence reads to me as if the game was released digitally because Hello chose Sony as its publisher. I am pretty certain Sony also distributes games on BluRay/DVDs so the logic of the sentence does not seem correct to me.
"... exaggerated physics ..."- How does one exaggerate "the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy"?
- I'm not sure how this could be better expressed - the physics are exaggerated (as in gravity is weaker, momentum is altered to make things easier...)
- One exaggerates the effects of physics, but I doubt exaggerating the science. Furthermore, the lede is a summary of the main body and nowhere in there is mentioned anything about "exaggerated physics". Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- How does "The game is presented in a light-hearted, comic way, and gives focus to performing stunts and maintaining speed." sound? Basically took the phrase out.
- One exaggerates the effects of physics, but I doubt exaggerating the science. Furthermore, the lede is a summary of the main body and nowhere in there is mentioned anything about "exaggerated physics". Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how this could be better expressed - the physics are exaggerated (as in gravity is weaker, momentum is altered to make things easier...)
- How does one exaggerate "the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy"?
Gameplay
"... on his return to the sport after a debilitating injury, ..."- Is this important to anything about the game?
- It's the only plot line in the game.
- But it serves no purpose. It does not explain why Joe has to jump those hoops. It is not part of a critically recognized plot device that motivates the player. The main plot line of the game (and the only one that matters here since it is not a complex story) is that Joe is racing against an enemy team in a sport full of obstacles and that is already sufficiently detailed in the article. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'll take it out.
- But it serves no purpose. It does not explain why Joe has to jump those hoops. It is not part of a critically recognized plot device that motivates the player. The main plot line of the game (and the only one that matters here since it is not a complex story) is that Joe is racing against an enemy team in a sport full of obstacles and that is already sufficiently detailed in the article. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's the only plot line in the game.
- Is this important to anything about the game?
"... to defeat his nemeses, Team Nasty."- The pairing of a plural with a singular/mass noun does not tally.
- WP:ENGVAR - this is perfectly correct in British English (of which I and Hello Games are speakers)
- British English would still prefer to be clear when it comes to mass nouns. "... to defeat his nemeses, the members of Team Nasty." would be clearer and proper in my view. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- While this is far from concise, I will defer to you.
- Well, if fewer words are desired, just use the singular: "... to defeat his nemesis, Team Nasty." Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is not correct in UK English. This reads incredibly badly to me. — Joseph Fox 13:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if fewer words are desired, just use the singular: "... to defeat his nemesis, Team Nasty." Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- While this is far from concise, I will defer to you.
- British English would still prefer to be clear when it comes to mass nouns. "... to defeat his nemeses, the members of Team Nasty." would be clearer and proper in my view. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- WP:ENGVAR - this is perfectly correct in British English (of which I and Hello Games are speakers)
- The pairing of a plural with a singular/mass noun does not tally.
"While based on a 2D plane, courses are designed with three "layers", enabling the player to "shift" forwards or backwards into 3D space."- A bit too technical and possibly incorrect in description... Furthermore, the Guardian article this statement is sourced to does not make any claim about three layers or 3D...
- The sentence was missed by myself earlier, should have been to Eurogamer where it is mentioned. Again, I'm not sure there is a simpler way to express this.
- "Players race Joe from left to right along a single lane. Some courses have three lanes, allowing Joe and other racers to switch among to dodge obstacles and take different routes to perform different tricks." According to the Eurogamer article, not every track has three "depths" ("Some tracks have three planes of depth which you can switch between at specific junctions. It pays to learn the most efficient."). Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Would just adding the word "some" be alright? It's a fairly crucial gameplay element.
- I do not quite understand here. Are you saying that using "2D" and "3D" are crucial to explain how the game works here? I would say not (I believe my suggested phrasing can work and it has no use of 2D/3D). I would like to point out that the term "3D" does not carry the same connotation across (spatial, graphics rendering, display). Most casual readers would see "3D" and likely think of those stereoscopic glasses or the new-fangled television displays that allow the images to "pop out" of the screen. Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Uh, would they? I don't think they would; especially not for a game released before 3D tech made its name. "3D" is fairly universally the counterpart to "2D" and merely indicates that another axis is involved (in this case the Z axis).
- They might; 3D to the common people (who are more of cinema and television audiences than gamers) is more likely to be the "pop out" effect. In my opinion, it does not matter whether the game uses three dimensions in the gameplay or not. What Hello Games did was simply adding more lanes in certain tracks for the characters to race; anyone could easily envision that scene when reading a description phrased in said manner. A attempt to technically describe what is happening might be more droll and awkward to the reader. Jappalang (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think making that assumption is a bit unfair; goodness knows if it's true or not. But fine, how does "While based on a 2D plane, some courses are designed with three layers which enables the player to "shift" forwards or backwards into different lanes." sound? — Joseph Fox 13:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- They might; 3D to the common people (who are more of cinema and television audiences than gamers) is more likely to be the "pop out" effect. In my opinion, it does not matter whether the game uses three dimensions in the gameplay or not. What Hello Games did was simply adding more lanes in certain tracks for the characters to race; anyone could easily envision that scene when reading a description phrased in said manner. A attempt to technically describe what is happening might be more droll and awkward to the reader. Jappalang (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Uh, would they? I don't think they would; especially not for a game released before 3D tech made its name. "3D" is fairly universally the counterpart to "2D" and merely indicates that another axis is involved (in this case the Z axis).
- I do not quite understand here. Are you saying that using "2D" and "3D" are crucial to explain how the game works here? I would say not (I believe my suggested phrasing can work and it has no use of 2D/3D). I would like to point out that the term "3D" does not carry the same connotation across (spatial, graphics rendering, display). Most casual readers would see "3D" and likely think of those stereoscopic glasses or the new-fangled television displays that allow the images to "pop out" of the screen. Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Would just adding the word "some" be alright? It's a fairly crucial gameplay element.
- "Players race Joe from left to right along a single lane. Some courses have three lanes, allowing Joe and other racers to switch among to dodge obstacles and take different routes to perform different tricks." According to the Eurogamer article, not every track has three "depths" ("Some tracks have three planes of depth which you can switch between at specific junctions. It pays to learn the most efficient."). Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- The sentence was missed by myself earlier, should have been to Eurogamer where it is mentioned. Again, I'm not sure there is a simpler way to express this.
- A bit too technical and possibly incorrect in description... Furthermore, the Guardian article this statement is sourced to does not make any claim about three layers or 3D...
"The bike is controllable while in the air, allowing for various tricks, such as flips and grabs, as well as manoeuvring onto targets."- I think "manoeuvring onto targets" is not that clear to everyone, and how is "grab" a trick?
- I don't see how "manoeuvring onto targets" is unclear even to those not gamers; would a wikilink on "grab" be an improvement?
- This again is sourced to the Guardian, which does not talk about "grabs", so is it that important a feature that must be described here? Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is, bar flips, the only class of trick able to be performed in-game.
- Then surely one of those sources would talk about it (and perhaps provide a more accessible phrasing); the Guardian does not speak of flipping over (handle?)bars. Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Flip" = forward/backward flip. Not a clue how you can arrive at "flipping over handlebars". I would also note that I took this phrase out entirely. "The bike is controllable while in the air, allowing for various tricks to be performed and for manoeuvring onto targets."
- Then surely one of those sources would talk about it (and perhaps provide a more accessible phrasing); the Guardian does not speak of flipping over (handle?)bars. Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is, bar flips, the only class of trick able to be performed in-game.
- This again is sourced to the Guardian, which does not talk about "grabs", so is it that important a feature that must be described here? Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see how "manoeuvring onto targets" is unclear even to those not gamers; would a wikilink on "grab" be an improvement?
- I think "manoeuvring onto targets" is not that clear to everyone, and how is "grab" a trick?
"Tricks can be linked with nose and tail wheelies to continue combos."- Rather than using a gaming jargon and directing readers to its article (and possibly never coming back), it will be better to find another phrasing that is much clearer to the reader and avoids the jargon.
- Like what? They are wheelies, there is no real way to simplify this term, again, without being absurd.
- I am talking about "combos". Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- With respect, I can't imagine another way to word this. "Tricks can be linked with nose and tail wheelies to continue combinations of tricks that will earn more points"?
- How about changing "Tricks can be linked with nose and tail wheelies to continue combos. As well as awarding the player points, performing tricks builds up a 'boost meter'." to:
- "Performing tricks awards points. More points are awarded for performing long sequences of tricks, typically by linking each trick with a nose or tail wheelie. Executing these stunts also builds a 'boost meter'."? Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Aaah, "sequences" never even crossed my mind. Sounds alright.
- With respect, I can't imagine another way to word this. "Tricks can be linked with nose and tail wheelies to continue combinations of tricks that will earn more points"?
- I am talking about "combos". Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Like what? They are wheelies, there is no real way to simplify this term, again, without being absurd.
- Rather than using a gaming jargon and directing readers to its article (and possibly never coming back), it will be better to find another phrasing that is much clearer to the reader and avoids the jargon.
"Earning points by performing tricks building up a "boost" meter which, when activated, allows for a temporary speed boost."- The grammar requires attention.
- "Building" -> "builds", typo.
- There are other issues with this statement. The source (A.V. Club) does not talk about points or that this boost is necessary for clearing long jumps. Furthermore, "activating" a "meter" to the common reader would mean a measuring device, like a taxi-meter. The game does not "use" a "meter" in that manner; it is a gauge to power an ability (one "activates" the ability). I would have phrased it as "Performing tricks builds up a "boost" meter. Pressing the boost button increases Joe's speed and drains the meter; Joe's gain in speed lasts as long as the meter is not empty." (based on reading the Eurogamer article). Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Other than the fact that I have not even the slightest idea what a "taxi-meter" is, I think your recommendation is perfect. I've implemented it (and noted that tricks earn points, which again is a fairly important feature).
- There are other issues with this statement. The source (A.V. Club) does not talk about points or that this boost is necessary for clearing long jumps. Furthermore, "activating" a "meter" to the common reader would mean a measuring device, like a taxi-meter. The game does not "use" a "meter" in that manner; it is a gauge to power an ability (one "activates" the ability). I would have phrased it as "Performing tricks builds up a "boost" meter. Pressing the boost button increases Joe's speed and drains the meter; Joe's gain in speed lasts as long as the meter is not empty." (based on reading the Eurogamer article). Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Building" -> "builds", typo.
- The grammar requires attention.
"... through the three 3D-space 'lanes'."
"... letters spelling 'DANGER', ..."- This goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters.
- Changed to "Danger".
- This goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters.
Downloadable content
"The patch added two features critics had marked the game down for: ..."- Without reading the sources, I can tell that this sentence is the opposite of what they say (the current sentence would mean the patch added two features that gathered criticisms).
- I'm completely lost as to what you're trying to say here.
- "The patch added two features", "two features critics had marked the game down for": They added a patch; the patch added two features; the critics gave bad marks to the game because of these features (and not because the bad marks were about something that was lacking but which the features fixed). Am I conveying my concern clearly? Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I still don't understand. I'll leave this for the time-being, it's fairly late here in Australia.
- Okay, let me try again. What you have written above is that the critics gave bad marks to the features added by the patch; i.e. they disliked the features to upload videos to Youtube and to share courses with friends. Now, is that correct and what you intended? Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, right, I get it now. Sorry, bit dim sometimes ;) Does the addition of the word "excluding" allay concern? — Joseph Fox 13:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, let me try again. What you have written above is that the critics gave bad marks to the features added by the patch; i.e. they disliked the features to upload videos to Youtube and to share courses with friends. Now, is that correct and what you intended? Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I still don't understand. I'll leave this for the time-being, it's fairly late here in Australia.
- "The patch added two features", "two features critics had marked the game down for": They added a patch; the patch added two features; the critics gave bad marks to the game because of these features (and not because the bad marks were about something that was lacking but which the features fixed). Am I conveying my concern clearly? Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm completely lost as to what you're trying to say here.
- Without reading the sources, I can tell that this sentence is the opposite of what they say (the current sentence would mean the patch added two features that gathered criticisms).
"Further features included ..."- "Other features included ..."
- Right, done.
- "Other features included ..."
"The announcement of the expansion came with a level-designing competition, with the top five winning tee shirts and artwork."- The ambiguities of noun-plus gerund... The announcement was accompanied by a competition, top five tee shirts, and top five artwork (from where does the shirts and artwork come from then)?
- I'm sorry? You've added commas why?
- User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing could explain why I read it in that manner. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think I got it. "The announcement of the expansion came with a level-designing competition in which the top five won tee shirts and artwork."
- User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing could explain why I read it in that manner. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry? You've added commas why?
- The ambiguities of noun-plus gerund... The announcement was accompanied by a competition, top five tee shirts, and top five artwork (from where does the shirts and artwork come from then)?
"Speaking to Mike Rose of Gamasutra in October 2010, Murray explained ..."- "Murray said in an interview ..." or "Murray said ..." would be much more concise.
- Gotcha.
- "Murray said in an interview ..." or "Murray said ..." would be much more concise.
Development
"... their first real experience of creating their own games came ..."- I do not think "came" is the proper verb here... this would be much better rephrased.
- "their first real experience of creating their own games was gained making levels for" - any better?
- I do not think "came" is the proper verb here... this would be much better rephrased.
"... internally as part of a larger company."- "Internally" is redundant.
- Zzzzzapped.
- "Internally" is redundant.
"Joe Danger was heavily influenced by an Evel Knievel toy ..."- Somehow this reads wrong to me. The game cannot be influenced. A game or its concepts bears an influence(s); the people who worked on the game can be influenced. It might be better to say that "An Evel Knievel toy was the main source of inspiration for Joe Danger; the team had fun "firing that stunt cycle out of windows and down halls"." The source also does not describe any "makeshift tracks"; the team just launched the toy into certain stunts.
- Pedantically, they would have needed tracks to drive it out of windows, but fair point, used that sentence.
- Somehow this reads wrong to me. The game cannot be influenced. A game or its concepts bears an influence(s); the people who worked on the game can be influenced. It might be better to say that "An Evel Knievel toy was the main source of inspiration for Joe Danger; the team had fun "firing that stunt cycle out of windows and down halls"." The source also does not describe any "makeshift tracks"; the team just launched the toy into certain stunts.
"Speaking to Alex Sassoon Coby of GameSpot, ...", "Murray told Simon Carless of Gamasutra that ...", "speaking to the website's Tom Bramwell ..."- Again these details are unnecessary.
- Really just to spice up the prose a little, but okay, "said" it is.
- Again these details are unnecessary.
"... that they would be granting Sony console exclusivity;"- A very clunky sentence, which makes me wonder why it cannot be rephrased as "... that they would be releasing the game only on Sony's Playstation 3;".
- "Console exclusivity" is the term used for such a stunt; the wikilink should be enough?
- A very clunky sentence, which makes me wonder why it cannot be rephrased as "... that they would be releasing the game only on Sony's Playstation 3;".
Reception
"It holds aggregate scores of 86.89% at GameRankings based on 33 reviews, and 86/100 at Metacritic based on 48."
"... the quickfire level system ..."- What is this?
- Removed "quickfire".
- It is not just that, the resulting change, "non-linear level system", could prove confusing as well. Do you mean a "non-linear level progression" (I am not sure if a non-gamer would catch on to this suggestion as well)? Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- How else might one describe non-linear progression?
- It is not just that, the resulting change, "non-linear level system", could prove confusing as well. Do you mean a "non-linear level progression" (I am not sure if a non-gamer would catch on to this suggestion as well)? Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Removed "quickfire".
- What is this?
"... Excitebike [1984] ... Super Mario Bros. [1985] .... Additional 90s video game influences were praised; ..."- I presume "90s video game" means "video games from the 1990s"; even then, how does "additional" come in? The previous mentioned games are from the 1980s.
- I think I added "additional" as a rash extra clause of its own. Will remove.
- I presume "90s video game" means "video games from the 1990s"; even then, how does "additional" come in? The previous mentioned games are from the 1980s.
"... influence of early, 2D Sonic the Hedgehog titles."- What is the comma doing there? Why is 2D stressed here (and not for the earlier video games from the 1980s)?
- To differentiate from 3D Sonic titles, but I suppose "early" is enough there.
- What is the comma doing there? Why is 2D stressed here (and not for the earlier video games from the 1980s)?
"While single-player gameplay was complimented, other features split opinion.- The second clause is badly phrased ("the other gameplay mode "features split opinion"?).
Commercial
Please remove the total "revenue" figures. This is not WP:CALC compliant. There is a reason Gamasutra does not use its analysis to say the game yielded this much revenue (they are only implying monetary gains through counted Leaderboards numbers). As far as I understand it, the Leaderboards analysis has a flaw: on the PS3 Network, one can share games across (5) machines. People who receive the game "free" from friends never paid money to play it, but their names would still be recorded on leaderboards (the same with different XBox Live accounts playing on one machine). Claiming what Gamasutra never clearly stated (especially with a possibly flawed analysis) is original research/synthesis. Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)- Should something be noted to this effect in the article? I will admit that it was a silly decision to include these, and I have removed the financial aspects of these, but since I cannot for the life of me find a source to prove Sony don't release sales figures I won't be able to back that side of the story up. (After writing this I have found a comment by Simon Carless in the comments section for this article but it's likely useless.
Follow-up
Too much detail that is making this section tread upon promotional hype. Just state there is a sequel and what it is going to be about. No need for "ooo, it will have this and that".- Got it. Most if not all of that is found in Joe Danger: The Movie so it's not a massive loss. Is it alright now?
Images
File:Joe Danger - Chuckles the Chimp.jpg: this image does not comply with WP:NFCC. One does not need to see it to imagine a monkey in place of Joe and bananas in place of coins (failing #1). Furthermore, the material about this image is not even in the article but rather a caption (#8).- Hmm, not sure I agree with that; if you're certain, though, I will happily remove (and delete) the image.
Overall, I think there is a need to pay attention to the use of gaming terminology here. This article is not supposed to be meant only for dedicated gamers. It is supposed to help inform the common reader (whether a gamer or not) about the game. Jappalang (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have addressed the concerns listed (with exceptions as above). — Joseph Fox 12:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- And again. — Joseph Fox 14:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- All in all, the revised article now is more accessible in my opinion to the common reader. A comprehensive coverage appears to be there, including a "guesswork" of sales (albeit by a notable gaming industry reporter, I suppose). Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's great, thanks for your help with improving it! :) Hopefully see you at FAC, haha. — Joseph Fox 01:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- All in all, the revised article now is more accessible in my opinion to the common reader. A comprehensive coverage appears to be there, including a "guesswork" of sales (albeit by a notable gaming industry reporter, I suppose). Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- And again. — Joseph Fox 14:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)