Talk:Panzer Dragoon/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 22:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Reception

One observation I noted is that most of, say, the first PD's reception is random reviewers. I'm not certain that individual reviews, unless they're uniquely notable reviews themselves, should be mentioned. Is it possible to find more examples of how Panzer Dragoon fared in, say, prestigious top lists? Overall, I'd say this applies to all four entries in this section.
Er, I guess I'm a bit confused as to what you're recommending. I'm not sure how to say what sort of critical reception the game got without referring to reviews that it received from critics. If I suppress mention of the specific publications the reviews came from, aren't I failing to attribute the comments and replacing them with my own original synthesis? Each of the four games' reception paragraphs already mentions multiple "top lists" that it appeared in; are you saying that you want more lists, or that you feel the lists currently mentioned aren't sufficiently prestigious? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think what may be good is to center the reception around more significant reception rather than picking out top critics. Point to the aggregate score and refer to especially notable reception, like awards, top games rankings (ideally covering multiple things, such as by year, platform, for Sega, and overall), etc. I might ask for a second opinion from someone who works on series articles to get a better idea of how to do a Reception section more effectively. I guess my concern is, why are these critics being quoted instead of others? Are they particularly notable reviews? That kind of thing. [1] This might be a good example to follow. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those critics are being quoted because they speak for notable publications, such as Next Generation, EGM, GamePro, IGN, GameInformer, and so on, and because their comments reflect notable aspects of the critical consensus about the titles in question, which is why similar quotations are present in the "Reception" section of that article on the Chrono series. But, if I'm understanding you correctly, you'd like less detail about what aspects of the games were or weren't well received, so that the focus is more on overall commercial performance and top lists? These games simply didn't achieve the commercial success or cultural prominence of a Chrono Trigger, and there's not going to be much to say about them from those angles. It'll make the reception section much shorter; if that's what you want, then I'll do it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Panzer Dragoon reception should include a tidbit about how the remake was received. Also, is there any reception for Mini?
Good point: I've added a paragraph on the critical reception of the remake. I haven't been able to find any critical notice of the Game Gear title. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, someone has just taken live a formerly draft article on Panzer Dragoon Mini with some more sources, and I've used some of those to add a short paragraph on Mini's critical reception. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The spiritual sequels bit feels oddly placed.
I've broken it out into a "Legacy" subsection to make the organization more clear. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, are there Famitsu scores to put in the table? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of WP:VGAGG is that MetaCritic is to be used when possible, falling back to GameRankings when a title is too old (like all of the Saturn titles) or Famitsu when a game was only or mainly released in Japan (like Mini). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, Famitsu is usually cited, as, rather than an aggregate, it's just multiple reviewers for a publication (like Electronic Gaming Monthly), so maybe just drop it from the table. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right that it doesn't quite serve the same purpose as MC and GR (as an aggregator), but the documentation on Template:Video game series reviews specifically says to use Famitsu for Japan-only titles that don't show up in those preferred sources; it also feels a little wrong to leave Mini out of the table when it has a paragraph in the section? I'll cut it if you feel strongly that it should go. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I feel like the lack of a screenshot of any one game is fairly limiting and doesn't help the reader understand what the series tends to look like.
I was a bit intimidated by the need to get the non-free fair-use stuff right! Do you have a thought about which title a screenshot should come from? (Probably not Saga, since it isn't a shooter) -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first game should be used. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a screenshot from the first game to the section that describes the core gameplay elements visible in the screenshot, and (I hope) I've updated the fair-use notices on the image's page. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'll continue the review in a day or so. I've not been well, and I don't like to review an article in that state. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, resuming now. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bryanrutherford0: Okay, I reckon I'll let my review issues slide, they're not failing. However, I will say that I'd like to see the quotes in the Reception paraphrased before I pass the article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Er, okay, thank you. So, you won't allow any quotations in the article? Considering that these quotations express the opinions of critics about works of art, I don't think I can paraphrase them in wikivoice without violating NPOV. I can cut some quotation from the section on the first game, if that one is particularly bothering you? These quotations are all taken from the reception sections of the respective games' articles, which are all rated GA or FA. As an example, the Reception section of Saga (a Featured Article) contains twenty-seven sentences, of which seventeen (almost 63%) contain a quotation from a review (four sentences are entirely quotation). By comparison, in this article, the Reception section contains twenty-one sentences, of which eight (just over 38%) include a review quotation of some length. If you could explain what policy or standard leads you to judge that too much quotation is being included, then maybe I'd know what goal we're aiming for? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's the main idea Cukie is suggesting, paraphrase the quotes for the receptions of each entry. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to quotations, but for example, the first Next Generation review is just a full on quote, while I find the quotations used in the EW text better. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened or removed some of the longer quotations; is this the direction you want it to go? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, more what I meant was turning "A reviewer for Next Generation wrote that the game "orchestrates incredible story animation with brilliant, 3D flight graphics"," into prose - for example, I don't even really understand what this sentence says. Is it saying that "in junction with brilliant flight graphics" or "using brilliant, 3D flight graphics"? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(I really appreciate you engaging with me and having a conversation!) My Merriam–Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., defines "orchestrate" as "arrange or combine so as to achieve a desired or maximum effect." The reviewer is saying that the game combines "incredible story animation"s, like the lengthy ones that begin and end the game, with "brilliant, 3D flight graphics" during gameplay to achieve the desired effect of an enjoyable experience for the player. So, that quotation is there to provide a specific supporting example of the earlier summary sentence's assertion that critics favorably received the game's art design, visual effects, and cinematic cutscenes, whereas the EW one is there to support the assertion that critics praised the atmospheric setting. I've replaced the word "orchestrates", in case that was an obstacle to clarity. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna ask @Alexandra IDV: for a second opinion on the degree of quotations used. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin: Pinging since this GA review appears to have been stalled for quite a while. My personal opinion is that the amount of quoting could still stand to be reduced ("a massive sensory overload machine", for example, could simply be paraphrased as overloaded the senses), but technically fine, since Panzer Dragoon Saga passed FAC in 2018 with similar amounts of quoting. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the change suggested, as well as removing some other quotation. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few other things I missed:

You should cite some stuff in the Games section. Release dates, developer/publisher, and platform. No need to source the story ofc, that's all verifiable from the game.
Clarify that Team Andromeda worked on the first three main Panzer Dragoons, as that's not immediately clear from the first section.
I've noted the developer in each case and added citations supporting the assertion of the developer, platform and date. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider altering the table to replace the three columns with "Aggregate score"? Since only one aggregate is used for each, no need to have so much blank space. I'd also suggest removing Panzer Dragoon Mini from it, it doesn't need to be in the table just because it's in the reception.
Okay, I've suppressed the attribution for the aggregate review scores. Is it necessary that Mini be left out? I don't quite see why... -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, Famitsu isn't actually an aggregate site like Metacritic, Opencritic, and Game Rankings are. That said, I'm not going to belabor that issue, as it's not a failing issue, just one that I disagree with a fair bit. The issues seem to be addressed to a reasonable degree. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]