The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2016 [1].

Jumping Flash![edit]

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping Flash! is a 1995 platform video game that has the distinction of being one of the most overlooked games of all time as well as the first platform game in "true 3D". It was originally hoped by Sony that this game would give them the opportunity to create themselves a "platform star" like Sonic and Mario, but that never materialised. This game was nothing more than a technology demonstration for the then-new PlayStation console and was very quickly overshadowed by games like Super Mario 64. Despite all that, many critics recognise this game's legacy and importance associated with early 3D gaming.

I've been re-working this article for a while now and I believe this meets the FA criteria. I know that after I've exhausted every possible source, and with the help of some others, I've gained some more that I didn't think were possible, so a big thanks goes out to everyone who has helped over the months. FYI, the reason why it failed last time was due to some misinterpretations with some sources, but after an extensive peer review and a copyedit, I believe they have all been addressed. JAGUAR  16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a read and let you know what I think! I haven't reviewed an article for some time, but this just happened to catch my eye.--SexyKick 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SexyKick, just wondering if you would still like to leave some input? No rush of course, but I'd hate to see this get closed due to inactivity. JAGUAR  10:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I was reading through, I remarked to myself that sentences / paragraphs in the Plot section didn't seem to end with citations. I checked two references in the Reception and Legacy and both held up. But I don't know when I'm going to have time between real life rock, and real life hard place.--SexyKick 16:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Don't worry about this too much, I'm not that anxious just yet. Plot sections don't need to be sourced, although most of the basic plot is covered in the game's manual itself. JAGUAR  16:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Techtri[edit]

It's certainly in better shape than last time it came up for FAC, but I've still got some concerns. On a quick read through I noticed the following.

Lead:

  • Rephrased to "Jumping Flash! has been described as an ancestor as well as an early showcase for 3D graphics in console gaming", as it's mentioned in the article as well as in numerous sources.[2][3] JAGUAR  14:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under Development and release:

  • Fixed both JAGUAR  14:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the liberty of combining the two refs that pointed to the same page of the same article [4]. Techtri (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the comparisons as it wasn't mentioned in the sources given. However, there are a couple of comparisons with Super Mario 64, but I chose not to mention it here as it doesn't seem relevant. JAGUAR  14:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3D technology sounds a bit vague, but I think 3D computer graphics would sound more accurate. I've changed it to that JAGUAR  16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch, upon this reflection I've rephrased it to "similar gameplay traits", as the lead also mentions "Jumping Flash! uses much of the game engine used in Geograph Seal". JAGUAR  16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under Reception and Legacy:

  • This always bothered me. I asked somebody if Culdcept Central was a reliable source, and he wasn't too keen on it. I was going to bring this up at WP:VG/RS but unfortunately I didn't have time to do it prior to this FAC. Even though it's the only source I can find that mentions a legitimate Famitsu Top 120 list, I myself don't think it's reliable and I can't find any such list anywhere else, so I've had no choice but to remove the entire sentence. Unless somebody has the original Famitsu issue and could translate into English, I'm left with no other choice than to leave as "Japanese magazine Famitsu gave the game a positive review". If you want, I could remove that sentence entirely and leave it as a score in the infobox? JAGUAR  14:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just have to know which issue of Famitsu those excerpts are from. Reference the magazine itself. ... cite news |title= |journal= |publisher= |date= |language= |author=Famitsu staff))</ref>--SexyKick 17:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find the definite issue or when it was published. Culdcept Central mentions that the list was published "recently" as of 2009, whereas I've searched for "120 PlayStation games of all time" and sometimes it comes back as being a November 2000 issue. I don't think is worth it, so I'm open to removing it entirely or should I leave this be? JAGUAR  19:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved this to the end of the paragraph JAGUAR  12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much clearer now. Techtri (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the genre as a whole, as the article is focused on the history of the jump. Reworded to reflect this JAGUAR  12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case, it it relevant to include it in this article? Techtri (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that it's relevant because it's a retrospective on Jumping Flash's legacy participation on the evolution of the jump. It also criticises the game's jumps, which in part is both relevant with reception and legacy. I wouldn't mind removing it from the section but I'd hate to lose out on a good source. JAGUAR  16:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I've merged this with the previous sentence to smooth it out a little JAGUAR  12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still finding a "slice" in videogaming history. awkward to read. A "slice in" something just doesn't sound right to me. Techtri (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I find "slice" a bit awkward. Reworded to "a part in videogaming history" JAGUAR  16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and find time to give it a more thorough look over later. Techtri (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Techtri: ping, sorry to bother. Just anxious about FAC inactivity. JAGUAR  19:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rhain1999[edit]

I apologise if any of my concerns have been discussed in a previous discussion, but I noticed a few things:

Lead
  • Changed to double for consistency. I find it hard to remember using American quotation marks on Wikipedia JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I've added a citation after "ancestor"
Body
  • I've done some minor copyediting and have tried to cut the quotes a bit. JAGUAR  19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the first paragraph seems rather short. I've merged the two together JAGUAR  19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the changes! JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There might be more, but I'll let other editors point those out; I couldn't find anything else. This is a really well-written article, and I'll be happy to support the FAC when these issues are addressed. Good luck! – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Rhain! I've addressed all of your concerns. I hope I didn't miss anything. JAGUAR  19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything so quickly! The only thing that really bothers me now is the length of the third "Gameplay" paragraph and second "Plot" paragraph, but these are minor personal nitpicks, and should only be changed if you see an appropriate way to do so. Since that's minor, I'm very happy to Support this FAC. Well done on all your hard work; good luck with the rest of the candidacy! – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! Much appreciated. I'll see what I can do about the two shorter paragraphs, but I can't think of any more to put in from the top of my head. JAGUAR  22:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo[edit]

Lead

  • True, I thought they were referring to a specific item but I checked the manual and it seems they're not capitalised in there, so fixed JAGUAR  20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't remember, but it was either in this FAC or the peer review where I got told that a citation was required after a direct quote in the lead. But it's not a big deal, and I prefer no citations in the lead anyway. Removed both the ref and quote. JAGUAR  20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch, rephrased JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could've sworn he had his own article, but I've removed all links JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed some repetition. It does sound better this way JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

  • I've elaborated on this a bit more. Jumping chains are initiated by jumping on enemies or their projectiles in succession, just like in Super Mario platforms. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not exactly a time limit, but every level is 10 minutes long and will end once that time runs out. But you're right, it's a worthy mention so I've included it. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

  • Limbs refer to both arms and legs; I thought it would be more accurate to describe the creatures. I don't know if it's anything to do with English variants JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Development and release

  • Good catch; removed. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think so. Rephrased JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the repetition of character-creation and moved the company renaming to the Legacy section. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and legacy

  • Unfortunately I don't have access to the review as it's not online. I can't remember who added it. The only extracts I can find are from unreliable sites so I can't use them. Should I remove the review from the section? JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a scan. But I can't read Japanese! Anyway, since I can't elaborate the review, I've removed the prose. JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a little about its reception, but I chose not to dwell on about it because it would have seemed irrelevant to this article. JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • I don't know what is correct, but I'm going to trust WP:VG/S and go with UGO Networks. Fixed all JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done. With the exception of maybe one or two issues of explaining in more detail, most issues are just minor complaints that can easily be dealt with. Overall, very nice article on a very influential yet completely forgotten game. Fix the issues, and you've got yourself a support. Famous Hobo (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: thanks for the review! I think I've addressed everything. This is truly a forgotten game, you're right. It was one of the first PlayStation games developed (arguably the first, if you take into account that it was a technology demonstration). This is why the artwork has different dimensions, as apparently PlayStation cases were DVD-shaped in very early North American releases. Writing this article has been a rewarding and interesting experience. Anyway, it seems I owe you one for reviewing this! JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar:, it always amazes me how your able to find those magazine scans. I might have to ask you to find a specific magazine in the future. Anyway, I do feel it's somewhat necessary to include Japanese reviews for games first released in Japan, but as that almost impossible for anyone outside of Japan, I understand. Though I find it weird having just Famitsu listed twice, with different scores, because this will almost certainly confuse the reader. Also, I think I incorrectly phrased my earlier issue with Famitsu PS. What I meant to say was just remove it. It bears no real importance to the article, and it's just an offshoot of the much more distinguished Famitsu. Once that's cleared up, you have my Support. Really, I'm giving you a support right now though. Congrats! Famous Hobo (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've dealt with the Famitsu issues you mentioned. Although cited correctly, they shouldn't be in the article as I can't read Japanese for the review. Yeah, I'm not sure if some of the sites the scans are on are considered unreliable, but I'm used to all this digging as I only write retro games. I suppose I can return the favour by helping you searching for information at some point. Anyway, thanks for the support! JAGUAR  17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I officially Support. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I had my say at Peer review where my comments with Referencing were dealt with. The article is in better shape than it was in its previous FAC. Z105space (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! JAGUAR  13:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from David Fuchs[edit]

—Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: I've addressed all of your concerns. Thanks for the review! To summarise, I've rephrased parts of the gameplay section so it more accurately follows the sources, uploaded a new image, archived all web sources and rearranged some sources that caused confusion in the gameplay section. I hope that covers everything. JAGUAR  17:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: I've made some further alterations to the gameplay section. I took your advice and fine-combed it, so I removed and rephrased a couple of sentences. I also added some missing citations, so I hope it's clearer now. What do you think? JAGUAR  15:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through it again this evening or tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doing another check I'm still seeing issues. Most enemies have simple actions; they wander around aimlessly or randomly shoot and throw projectiles, and others will directly attack Robbit is sourced to [6][7]. The only bit from both I see as tangentially supporting the statement is While most enemies do not bother you (you can just jump or run on by 'em), others will stand in your way. You have rollercoaster-filled carnivals when the source doesn't mention rollercoasters. I can't check the original manual to see what lines up there but I'm concerned there might be similar elaboration in the prose that doesn't line up with what the source precisely says. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I got the physical manual. You can download a PDF file of it but to do that you have to join a member of a forum to access it. The manual is surprisingly comprehensive and is probably the best resource to use for gameplay, I would try to send you a link to line up the writing but I don't know if it will work. Does this work? JAGUAR  16:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: addressed both those points. I removed the "Most enemies have simple actions; they wander around aimlessly or randomly shoot and throw projectiles" sentence entirely because I can't make out how to rephrase that, as the online source is unclear. I've added a couple more points which I extracted from the manual, such as earning an extra life for every 1 million points and a continue option. I hope you can access that manual, because it's by the far the most useful source for gameplay. The scan is 95 megabytes, so I won't be able to put a link in the article (which I know should be fine). JAGUAR  16:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could upload it to Replacement Docs (they only have the sequel there.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded it (spent 40 minutes waiting) but I don't think it worked because the file exceeded the 65 megabyte limit. JAGUAR  20:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the previous issues I don't really feel comfortable supporting on that issue, but as I have not found any new issues using sources I can access I'm striking my oppose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll see if I can upload the manual by cutting some pages. I can't promise anything because the only file I could get is unusually large at 95mb, but the download link is still there if all else fails. JAGUAR  21:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: I hate to disappoint but I can't upload the manual, it's impossible to do so. The only thing I can think of is emailing it. JAGUAR  21:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ident) I've looked through the manual citations and they really need to be made page specific—the manual cites pages 4, 5, and 17, when it's citing for other pages as well (the gameplay information on what's on the screen, for instance, is on page 7.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Voilà, just added harvrefs for the manual along with its individual page numbers. JAGUAR  16:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Anything major outstanding? If not then I'd like to close this. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing outstanding at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Masem left some minor comments yesterday and I've took care of them, although he already left a support. I believe I have everything covered in this FAC. Just noticed that this is the oldest nomination, it doesn't feel that long! JAGUAR  22:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, with the caveat that so much is wrong with the prose in the second paragraph of the Reception and legacy section that I hardly know where to start. It might be best to rewrite that paragraph from scratch. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: thanks for the copyedits! I've done some copyediting to the second paragraph of the reception, and I've corrected some minor adjectives so that they are now based on their sources more accurately. Other than that, I couldn't find any misunderstandings with that paragraph. What sort of issues do you see with it? JAGUAR  18:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. That paragraph is better now. I guess I'll let my support stand, but only per my standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If there's anything else I can do, I'll be happy to get to it. JAGUAR  19:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

Resolved comments from Frankie talk
* You haven't used the initials for artificial intelligence anywhere so I suggest removing that from Gameplay section.
  • Good catch, fixed JAGUAR  23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a new life will be granted once one" – I think it sounds much better in present perfect form.
  • Changed to present tense JAGUAR  23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and will end once the time runs out" – present form, IMO.
  • Agreed, changed JAGUAR  23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see six instances of "also". Not a problem but it could be removed in some places where it adds nothing new.
  • I've removed two uses of "also" JAGUAR  23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why it says it redirects on the toolserver, but it works fine in the article. I'll leave it as it is, if that's OK. JAGUAR  23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Criticise" used over four times in the second para of Reception and legacy.
  • I removed two instances and replaced them with better synonyms JAGUAR  23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 – "Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work." Based on this, I would suggest to remove Sony Computer Entertainment staff, ed.
  • Ref 5 – IGN does not need italics and needs to be wiki-linked. Make sure they are not italicized elsewhere too.
  • Done, I never like italicising IGN. Bizarrely, the way to de-italicise names in the 'work=' field is to italicise them! JAGUAR  23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 35's publisher needs to be wiki-linked. Also, you need to add Ziff Davis's name.
  • Link PlayStation in ref 38.
  • Done, also de-italicised it. JAGUAR  23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not my area of expertise so that's all I could spot. They shouldn't be hard to fix. Overall a good article. -- Frankie talk 19:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: thank you for the review! I should have everything addressed. Your comments were very helpful, I'm glad someone reminded me to un-italicise everything! JAGUAR  23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support for promotion. Hope you have your first FA with this. I hope I have mine too. -- Frankie talk 07:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Frankie! I really hope so. This is got to be my most successful nomination yet. I'm confident you'll get yours. JAGUAR  16:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. IMO it's close to promotion; the only thing needed is source review, which, I think, you should request here. Also, could you take a look at mine which is lacking participation? -- Frankie talk 20:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Frankie! Which one did you want me to take a look at? Is it a featured list nomination? I'll be happy to leave comments. To be fair most of the comments above have been orientated around sources and spotchecking, but I see what you mean. It wouldn't hurt to have an official lookover just so I can get this FAC out of the way. I think every source has already been scrutinised (not sure on the manual, but it's linked in this FAC for anyone to download). I'll request one now. JAGUAR  20:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[8] you had also left comments in its PR. :) -- Frankie talk 20:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Looking over it now....

  • Thanks! Addressed. JAGUAR  14:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Hey, were you going to leave any more comments? I think this is nearing completion. Although comments regarding the sources have been made above, I think a final check over would finally finish this FAC, which has been open since November. I could always leave some comments on one of your FACs in return? JAGUAR  19:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • sorry, been busy. I was going to look at sources but saw the discussion with @David Fuchs: above and not sure if that was resolved. I would like to hear from David how he feels things are at present. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, no rush. I think all of the source issues have been more or less addressed in this FAC, however I wasn't able to upload the game's manual to a sharing site. I left the download link above, but it's a large 95 mb pdf file, which exceeds the limit for uploads (and it was the only one I could get hold of). If anything, I think that's the only thing left to check over. JAGUAR  21:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to reduce the file size to under 4 MB, which can be downloaded here. – Rhain ☔ 22:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for doing that! I tried installing freeware to reduce the size or at least cut a few pages, but I never could get it to work. With that done, the manual can now be analysed, and I think that's the only source left to check. Naturally, I'll do a final double-check myself. JAGUAR  22:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Is there anything else that would need to be done here? I feel that the sources were all spotchecked above, and there are no other issues outstanding. This has been open for a while and I'm eager to do whatever else is needed. JAGUAR  17:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Masem[edit]

  • Thank you for the fixes! I've updated the cover art's rational, as it seemed outdated. I've reduced the screenshot's size to 425 x 300 pixels, and added the original Engadget article to its file. The reduced size of the screenshot looks fine. Yeah, finding any information on this article was a challenge, but it's received a small amount of publicity in retrospective reviews, as it can arguably be considered the first PlayStation game (though it depends on how you look at it). JAGUAR  20:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More