Talk:A Boy and His Blob

A Boy and His Blob was a Video games good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 24, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

CaseOh (streamer) (7 participants)
List of longest-running video game franchises (7 participants)
Atomas (1 participant)
PLAY: The Games Festival (3 participants)
FloodSim (3 participants)
Kunimitsu and Kunimitsu II (2 participants)
Blast Monkeys (2 participants)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (6 participants)
Free Internet Chess Server (9 participants)
Gilman Louie (3 participants; relisted)
Yoshimitsu (5 participants; relisted)
Emote (3 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Article Name

I suggest moving this article to A Boy and His Blob (Wii) to not only put it in line with other similar video game articles that have had a same named sequel on a later gen console, but it's a less confusing title as a few years from now, it's less likely someone would remember the exact release year of a game than what console it was one.24.190.34.219 (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also occurs to me that people are more like to search for 'A Boy and His Blob (Wii)' than 'A Boy and His Blob (2009 video game)'.24.190.34.219 (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we even name articles like that, e.g. Title (Console)? I don't think we do. Anyway, searching for A Boy and His blob turns up the original game article, which contains a link to the Wii game at the top, and searching for A Boy and His Blob (Wii) takes you to search results with the Wii game as the first result. No-one's going to have any problems finding it. Geoff B (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few examples, such as Punch-Out!! (Wii) (as opposed to Punch-Out!! (NES) and Punch-Out!! (arcade game)). 24.190.34.219 (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a redirect for "A Boy and His Blob (Wii)" to this page, so that should cover all basis.Flygongengar (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The box cover has the title all in lowercase (a boy and his blob). Should the title of the article be changed to reflect this?Commandr Cody (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the game's stylized logo, press releases and reviews for the game seem to consistently use it with caps "A Boy and His Blob" so it's probably best to keep the current name.24.190.34.219 (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the reception section

I expanded the reception section beyond the Nintendo Power review, and provided proper sources for the reviews.24.190.34.219 (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remake?

I'm a little uneasy about the use of the term "remake" in regards to this game. As pointed out to me, some previews and game magazines have indeed used the term when describing the game, however the game itself isn't a remake of the NES game. It has entirely different levels, world design (not one big open world, but set stages), set of blob powers, etc. It's not a direct sequel, either, but more a reboot of the series. Also, it should be noted that,as far as I know, no "official" source (Nintendo, a developer) has called it a remake24.190.34.219 (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IGN dev interview - We want to make sure people know this is not a remake! It's not Resident Evil GC, it's not Metroid Zero Mission. It's a whole new game that is more "inspired by" the original than anything else. Apparently.

In the reviews, 'remake' is used, but so is 'reimagining', 'retooling' etc. Whatever works. Geoff B (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well as that quote is directly from a developer and they specifically state that it is "not a remake", whereas all the sources calling it a remake are third-party and not involved with the games creation, I think we should follow the statement of the developer and not call it a remake. Any objection to changing it to "it is a re-imagining of the 1989 NES game, A Boy and His Blob"?

Yeah, in another interview at Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/2009/03/20/joystiq-interview-majesco-wayforward-spill-the-jelly-beans-on/) WayForward's director Sean Velasco, specifically states:

This game is not a remake!! Yell it to the skies! However, this game is not a sequel to the original, either. Let's call it a "reimagining."

So I think calling it a reimagining is the best option, as that's what the developers label the game as opposed to simply third part game magazines.24.190.34.219 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added a "Plot" and "Development" section

I've expanded the article to include a "Plot" and "Development" section. I think all the article needs now is maybe a screen shot from the game itself? If someone can find an appropriate one and add it?24.190.34.219 (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Boy and His Blob (2009 video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
See below
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
See below

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
See below

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
See below
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
See below
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Prose/Style

Try to avoid one-sentence and even two-sentence paragraphs, like the first sentence in Plot and the paragraph at the end of Development. They should be expanded or consolidated with other paragraphs.

Per standard video game article conventions, the Gameplay section should precede Plot.

There is a large developer quote in the Plot section; it should probably go in Development. Use reviews to indicate the relationship between the main characters in Plot.

Be sure to wikilink terms in their first appearance in the article proper (WayForward and Majesco Games in Development, for instance).

The Reception section is a little awkward. Consider merging the first sentence with the large paragraph, and then breaking up that big paragraph into two or three smaller ones. "Walls of text" are unwieldy.

Inlines in the lead are generally unnecessary (including the infobox).

Comprehensiveness/Sources

This article may need a little more info to be accessible to a non-gamer. What is a 2D puzzle platformer, for instance? Also, the Gameplay section needs more details on the blob's abilities. A few examples of the shapes that it can turn into to navigate the levels would suffice.

The first paragraph in Plot is unsourced and may be considered original research. There has to be information about the story, however minimalist, in reviews.

The first sentence in Reception is unsourced.

These sources are fine for GA. However, the Joystiq review may be a problem at any future FAC.

Four aggregate sites in the reviews infobox is excessive. Two at the most. Also, I like to see reviews in the infobox go by alphabetical order, but that's trivial.

Images

Each image needs a copyright tag. It looks like the images are scheduled for deletion next week so I would recommend using {{Non-free game screenshot}} for the gameplay image and {{Non-free character}} for the concept art. If you agree, simply add the tags and that's that.

Ive tagged both images with the {{Non-free game screenshot}} as the concept art states that it was grabbed from the game also, but it can always be changed. Salavat (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me.— Mr. Van Tine (t – c) 15:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FUR for the images are adequate for GA status, but they will require more if the article goes to FAC. That being said, the caption for the gameplay image should specifically describe how the blob is using its abilities in the picture.

All said, a well-written article. This article is on hold until these issues can be addressed. The reviewer has one week to fix them but more time can be allotted if warranted. Keep up the good work. Reviewer: — Vantine84 (t – c) 06:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary addition

Don't forget that all images need alt text per WP:ALT to pass GA. --Teancum (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...is this new? I don't remember hearing about it before. — Mr. Van Tine (t – c) 05:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this brought up on another review recently but have also noticed not all reviews are mandating this. --Remy Suen (talk) 12:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The good article criteria do not mention this specifically, but criterion 6b says "Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions." The page on captions says that all images should have alt text. I suppose that alt text isn't too difficult to do, so I'll agree with Teancum for this review. — Mr. Van Tine (t – c) 05:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a request for a second opinion; is the request on a specific part of an article or the article in general? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself. — Mr. Van Tine (t – c) 11:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Given the time to repair the article and the fact that the issues still need addressed. I recommend failing the article for the time being. Nominator had only one reply to issues listed, and has not made edits since. User:Vantine84 has made several edits to improve the article, but in the end the issues still need additional work, and it's been nearly a month.

Recommendation: Fail -- until issues are completely addressed, at which point it can be renominated. --Teancum (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

It appears that issues in the review have still not been addressed, nominator has not edited since 1 January, recommend immediate fail. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone edit the Australian release date for me?

I was having trouble editing both the information box and the paragraph about the Australian release date. The game was released in Australia on November 19, 2009. Refs: http://www.aussie-nintendo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18742 and http://www.aussie-nintendo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17473 but in limited numbers. Could someone add this information in please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.60.39 (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

Request for inclusion of a section describing the developing conflict between Digital Blasphemy and the producers of "A boy and his blob". Source is Digital Blasphemy's Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=418379969104&set=a.93231114104.74255.22336144104&type=1&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.164.100 (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]