Talk:WonderSwan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 19:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Always nice to see a video game hardware article nom from Red Phoenix. I'll be happy to give this one a look. Indrian (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Deja vu, eh, Indrian? I'd like to note before you get started that it's likely I won't be the only one responding to this review as Lucia Black has also been hard at work with this article, and this nomination is a co-nomination with her. You might get some responses from each of us. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 23:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I did not realize it was a co-nomination. I look forward to working with Lucia Black as well. I think we are in good shape overall, but there are definately some tweaks needed, which I outline below. Indrian (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead and Infobox

•  Done So right off the bat, the one major problem I see is the conflation of the WonderSwan as a line of products and the WonderSwan as the first iteration of that line of products. The infobox gives the retail availability date for the original WonderSwan, but not the WonderSwan Color or WonderSwan Crystal. It gives the price for the first two systems, but not the final system. It gives total sales for the entire line, but not for the individual systems (the two Retro Gamer articles do provide some figures for the original WonderSwan and the WonderSwan Color, so this is not due to a lack of available figures). A discontinuation date is given for the entire line, but not for the individual units. The picture in the infobox features only the original WonderSwan, while precedent at FA articles like Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo Entertainment System appears to indicate that all prominent variations should be equally represented in the infobox graphic.
  • Yeah, I missed the figures... somehow. I fear I'm rushing again; thank you for catching those. I hadn't found a price for SwanCrystal; it looks like Lucia found it, and then I found another using HighBeam. I think we have this all fixed unless I'm missing something. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, this looks much better now, thanks. Indrian (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Done In the same vein, the lead uses the term "WonderSwan" interchangeably as well without differentiating between the original system and the line. For example, the article starts by identifying the WonderSwan as a "handheld line," but then later refers to the "WonderSwan and its two later models" without explaining that the WonderSwan is also the name of the first system in the line. Likewise, in the second paragraph, the article discusses the WonderSwan's competition, but this is really about the original system and not the entire line, as the Color and Crystal competed against the Game Boy Advance. The info itself is fine, but the lead needs to make it clear when it is discussing the WonderSwan handheld line as a whole and the original WonderSwan handheld.
  • I gave it a glazing over; it looks better now. What do you think? Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I tweaked the language as well and changed the mix of third-party companies to better highlight those most prominently featured in the sources. I think it looks fine now. Indrian (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Done Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes states that information in the infobox need not be cited if it is cited in the article itself. Therefore, you do not need to cite the sales data in the infobox.
  • Remnant of the old style before I touched it. Fixed now. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

History

•  Done I know you like to give a little historical background to ease into a subject, which is fine, but this one misses the mark a bit. As written, it implies that Bandai was exclusively a model vehicle maker until it decided to branch out into LCD games in the 1970s. On the contrary, Bandai became a major toy company in the 1960s when it initiated its strategy of funding children's television programming and then creating action figures based on the programs. Handhelds became another extension of this licensing business, and the company also became a prominent video game hardware company as well in the late 1970s and early 1980s, releasing its own dedicated consoles and importing the Intellivision. Not all of that need go in this article, of course, but the implication that it was only a model maker until the 1970s is misleading.
  • Not to bug you so much, but do you have a source for this? It would really help; I can't really find anything that's helping me with this. I even took a skim through HighBeam Research and haven't found a lot to help me here. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • No problem, I'll get to this shortly. I'll basically change it to say that they became a major toy company in the 1960s on the back of licenses, entered the LCD and dedicated console markets in the 1970s, and sporadically released video game hardware in the 1980s and 1990s (Intellivision, Pippin, etc.) all with proper sourcing. Indrian (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Okay, I have fleshed out the history of the company a little bit. Indrian (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Done I know you took this straight from the Retro Gamer article, but the Sega-Bandai merger was not a "rumor." The merger was a done deal that was widely reported in the media, but Bandai's shareholders revolted and the merger had to be called off. The presidents of both Bandai and Sega were forced to resign over the shame of failing to complete the deal.
  • Got it. Thank you, new HighBeam account :) Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Technical Specifications

•  Done So I know that with the relative scarcity of information on the WonderSwan its hard to balance info to make sure every section is meaty enough to stand well on its own, but there is some major duplication between the history and technical specification sections. The history section goes into detail about the number of colors and increased RAM in the WonderSwan Color and the improved LCD screen of the Crystal, and then that same info is covered in this section. The redundancy should be eliminated. I am interested in your thoughts as well, but from my perspective the history section should be concerned with release dates, prices, and performance in the marketplace, while the technical details should be reserved for this section.
  • Perhaps we can give a summarized, less detail explanation of the key differences without mentioning the technical specifications? I'm also considering moving the color models into history, as thats not very "technical" about them. Lucia Black (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    • It looks better in the history now. Do we have it streamlined well enough now? Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I did some substantial rewriting of the history section to improve flow and incorporated the casing color info in that section as Lucia suggested, as I agree these are not really technical specs. I think that solves the problem. If either of you have any problems with my rewrites, please let me know here, as I did change a fair amount. Indrian (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The fact that the Wonderswan only played sampled waveforms, instead of having a more typical sound generator, seems like worth mentioning IMO. This set it appart from all the other handhelds to that date (except the Lynx), and it allowed for a very unique port of beatmania that used the same sounds as the far more powerful arcade machine. I think this was reliably quoted before the specs table was removed, but I can try finding more/better citations if needed. Segata128 (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I"ll look into the sources if they make such a mention. But if you have the source, provide it. Lucia Black (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
      • The official site of Japanese developer Qute Corporation mentions it in detail, although it is in Japanese: http://wwgp.qute.co.jp/2002/entry/00040/ws-web/sound/sound1.html Qute Corporation created BANDAI's official development kit for hobbyists (WonderWitch), so they are a reliable source. The documentation included with Wonderswan emulator Cygne (http://cygne.emuunlim.com/files/wstech21.txt) also gives a complete explanation in English, which matches the official information in Qute's site. Since it was written by someone who proved to be an expert in the field by creating a working Wonderswan emulator, I would argue it should be considered a reliable source, but in any case, the Japanese site has all the official information. Segata128 (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
        • There is a confusion here. The document on the Qute website are correct, but does not come from Qute, but from Kazuhisa Kobayashi (小林 一久). This documentation is part of an entry #40 of the (WonderWitch Programming Contest) They are high quality documentation (better than wstech honestly which lacks lots of documentation) but it not an official one. The only official documentation for the WonderSwan, is the one comming with the higly priced SDK, or the WonderWitch one. Both are not officialy publicly available. Godzil (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Either i don't have the right character set in my computer, or something is wrong with the site. if anyone can see this site properly, they can add the information. ROM sites are generally unreliable. Lucia Black (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, most old Japanese sites and text files look like garbage initially, you will need to select Shift-JIS encoding in your browser ("View > Character encoding" in Firefox) and it'll look fine. Also, the source for the document in English would not be emuunlim, but the author of Cygne himself. Emuunlim is just one of the many sites where that document is hosted. I'll see if I can get a translation of Qute's site Segata128 (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added a short sentence about the sound capabilities. The old specs table had more detailed information but I guess this is enough? I also thought it was relevant to call the WonderWitch an "official SDK for amateur programmers" to furthers clarify it's neither an official SDK for licensed developers nor a homebrew SDK with no involvement from the original hardware manufacturer. Segata128 (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is a SDK? Lucia Black (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Software Development Kit. Indrian (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Game Library

•  Done A minor point, but its probably worth mentioning that Banpresto was partially owned by Bandai at the time.
  • Added by way as a dash comment. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 00:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Done Both Retro Gamer articles highlight Densha de Go! from Taito as a standout title, so it should probably be included here.
  • Added. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 00:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Reception

•  Done So, the Kotaku article does not claim that WonderSwan held 10% of the market, it says it "approached" 10% of the market. If you look at the earlier of the two Retro Gamer articles, it claims an 8% marketshare for the system. This should probably be changed both here and in the lead.
  • Interesting, I hadn't seen the 8%; I just used the less than 10 because that's all I saw. I must be slipping, but I'll correct it. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 00:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Done I took the liberty of dividing this section into two paragraphs, as it seemed overly long as a single paragraph. I still think the second paragraph can be shortened, though I did not want to remove material without consulting you. Personally, I think the sentence "It's a shame that Yokoi did not live to see the WonderSwan duke it out with Nintendo. Because while it ended up—like so many other handhelds—crushed beneath the feet of the industry giant, it tried some pretty unique and interesting things, and put up a much sterner fight than most other handhelds ever managed" could be shortened to "[I]t tried some pretty unique and interesting things, and put up a much sterner fight than most other handhelds ever managed," as the info about Yokoi and being crushed does not really add any insight into the system's reception.
  • Looks like Lucia got this one. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 00:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Images

 Done I know this is a short article, but this seems a little sparse. I am not sure what to suggest here except that maybe you could find a picture of Yokoi or a picture of some of the system's accessories. If not, that's fine -- I'm not going to fail the article over that -- but it just feels like it could use a little more in this department.

• Yokoi's picture is unfortunately copyrighted - I did check. I did have to remove the WonderSwan variations from the Tech specs because they needed to be in the info box, but in return I added a picture of an NEC V20 in order to add some diversity. I can try to find more, but finding free-use images seems to be the trick here... even the old WonderSwan image that was in the info box I suspect is actually copyrighted because of the image of Gunpey on it.
  • Yeah, I figured this would probably be a problem. As I said, I am not going to fail the article on these grounds, so don't worry about it. Indrian (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Looks like User:Evan-Amos has given the images a nice overhaul and found a couple of new things to display. This seems much better now. Indrian (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

And that's it. While I have written a lot of text, in truth, I think the actual issues I have highlighted are fairly minor, with the exception, perhaps, of my concerns regarding the lead and the infobox. I know it can be difficult attempting to create an informative and balanced article on a subject that is discussed in relatively few English-language sources, so I do not intend to be too particular in how my concerns are addressed. I do believe this article is close, so I am going to place it  On hold for now. Indrian (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Indrian: I believe we've addressed all concerns here, aside from my request for a source above. Thanks for the thorough review; though I will admit I got a laugh out of how many times you used "I know" to start a point - just a little chuckle that you know how I write these things by as many of these reviews you've done for me. I'd also like to thank Lucia Black for introducing me to this article and the WonderSwan, which I'd never even heard of before she asked me to look at this, and allowing me to work my magic on it. It certainly seems to have been quite the interesting handheld. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix:@Lucia Black: So I gave the article another thorough read through and did a fair amount of reorganization and rewording to improve flow. If you don't like any of my changes, feel free to bring your concerns here, and I am sure we will be able to work them out. I still need to give the Bandai history paragraph a polish, but otherwise I think my concerns have been addressed. I should be able to promote this before the end of the day. Indrian (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I am mostly satisfied with the changes done. the only one i'm concerned about is the word choice "overshadowed" then "outcompeted". i think one suggests more than the other. but if red phoenix prefers that wording, i wont mind. Lucia Black (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, "outcompeted" really is not a word. Would you prefer "outperformed"? Indrian (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds better. Lucia Black (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Indrian (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me; no issues with any changes at all. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 04:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Indrian: Hey, what's the scoop? Further changes to be made? Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 23:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not quite able to get all the necessary changes done before the holiday weekend, which slowed the process down. I have now tweaked the beginning of the history section and made a small number of additional grammatical changes, while Evan-Amos has found some lovely new images for the article. All my concerns have now been dealt with, and I am pleased to promote the article to GA. My thanks to everyone who contributed to this review. Indrian (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)