Misplaced Pages

Talk:PlayStation Portable

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 15:40, 26 November 2018 (Transcluding GA review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:40, 26 November 2018 by Legobot (talk | contribs) (Transcluding GA review)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

PlayStation Portable is currently a Video games good article nominee. Nominated by JC7V-constructive zone at 17:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the PlayStation Portable article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find video game sources: "PlayStation Portable" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about PlayStation Portable. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about PlayStation Portable at the Reference desk.
Former good articlePlayStation Portable was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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
DateProcessResult
June 1, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 20, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
August 24, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 24, 2009Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject iconVideo games B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. 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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
WikiProject iconBrands Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on PlayStation Portable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 13:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Fusion Articles

There is a possibility of joining processes articles ? PSP .CSO UMD (PSP). Elilopes (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on PlayStation Portable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on PlayStation Portable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 Request withdrawn -I'll work on the article more and resubmit it for FAC review instead. So please archive this review. JC7V (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:PlayStation Portable/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 15:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

  • I'm confident that none of the pages flagged up by the Earwig tool are actual copyright violations. The ones with high confidence all show strong signs of being copied from Misplaced Pages rather than the other way round, e.g. for the similar page is obviously copying Wii, for the content was in the article some time before the date of the blog post. The ones with lower confidence are reasonable attributed quotations or false positives. Hut 8.5 21:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Hut 8.5, I didn't want to go ahead if there was an issue, and I'm not prepared to promote any article that does have copyright infringmenets. I'll continue the review! Lee Vilenski 08:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - There are no current tags for this purpose. Lee Vilenski 15:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - No insight of edit warring. Lee Vilenski 15:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Links

I've fixed all of the links which redirected back to Playstation Portable. You can check the article itself for proof JC7V (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Can you give me specific examples, this is too vague?? I've already made about 3 or 4 references uniformed with the others and am still doing so. JC7V (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I've went ahead and made all of the references uniform as you requested. JC7V (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I"ve fixed the dead links JC7V (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Prose

Infobox

Lede

  • "developed by the Sony Computer Entertainment" - Surely "the" is not neccesary? Lee Vilenski 11:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • you don't need sources in the lede. It's a big put off for me. Everything written in the lede should be written and sourced elsewhere in the article. Lee Vilenski 11:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The original PSP model (PSP-1000) was replaced by a slimmer model with design changes (PSP-2000/"Slim and Lite") in 2007. Another remodeling followed in 2008, PSP-3000, which included a new screen and an inbuilt microphone. A complete redesign, PSP Go, came in 2009, followed by a budget model, PSP-E1000, in 2011. " - this whole paragraph isn't really for a lede. Simply stating that there were several different models is what should be in the lede, and the different models in depth later in the article. Lee Vilenski 11:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • As of 2017, this is the primary method to purchase PlayStation Portable games digitally because Sony shut down direct access to the PlayStation Store via PSP on March 31, 2016. - You wouldn't need to put "as of 2017", as it would still be true in 2016. Lee Vilenski 11:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • You mention the sales of the console (Which is great), but not how this reacts to it's competitor the Nintendo DS. Information on the release; reception and sales are the main things for a sales product GA IMO. Lee Vilenski 11:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    Lee Vilenski, I've compared the sales of the Playstation Portable to the Nintendo DS in the sales section, then in the reception section I explained why the Nintendo DS sold better than the Playstation Portable. Plus I briefly compared some technical elements of the two handhelds in the technical specification section which I wrote in prose. JC7V (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

History

Very well written section. I have no issues. Lee Vilenski 11:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Technical Specifications

I think this is where my biggest issue is. Most GAs would have some sort of prose regarding the differences in specifications against it's competitors, and each version. Looking at PlayStation 4 which is a GA, this even has a seperate split topic on the subject, but everything is written in prose: see PlayStation 4 technical specifications. Even thoigh Nintendo 3DS isn't a GA, this has a great version of this section. Other GA articles such as Dreamcast also have a prose version of this.

I'm not sure I would support a promotion with this as a simple list; for it failing being well written. Lee Vilenski 11:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Lee Vilenski I've fixed every issue you raised including the prose issue. So please give me some feedback on the changes that I made. If my changes to anything weren't good enough, please tell me exactly what to fix and me and maybe someone else can fix these issues (I tried to turn the technical specifications into prose the best I could but I don't know anything about technical specifications so if it's not good enough, I may have to enlist help from another member of WikiProject Video Games to help me). JC7V (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, I've fixed every issue that you cited. I've also put the whole technical specification section into prose form. If that or any other change I've made isn't good enough, tell me and I'll continue to fix the issues. Thank you. JC7V (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I've been away all weekend. I've taken a look at the technical specification, and it's certainly better. However, it does need a good copy edit. I'll move onto other parts of the article and take a look at this last. Lee Vilenski 10:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Models

I don't really have a problem with this. A table does seem like the most suitible way to describe this information in this instance. Lee Vilenski 10:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Variations

I don't think serial codes are notable at all. Noting that the games are non-region specific, is important, and that the consoles only work with the correct versions is fine, but I'm not sure the table is needed. Lee Vilenski 10:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Redesigns

Sales

Hardware/Software

  • The PSP browser is slower compared to modern browsers and often runs out of memory due to limitations put in place by Sony. - should really have a reference. Seems derogitory without one. Lee Vilenski 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • same with "The PSP is equipped with a two-pin docking connector immediately below the AC adaptor jack for easy drop-in charging using a docking station that was to be sold separately for the PSP-1000 series. However no such charging dock was ever released by Sony. The two-pin docking station charging contacts were removed from the PSP-2000 and later versions." Lee Vilenski 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "As of October 31, 2012 the Digital Comics App is no longer available for download.

As of December 31, 2012 the Digital Comics Server has been taken offline and earlier bought comics can no longer be re-downloaded." - make into one paragraph/sentence, and source. Lee Vilenski 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


Games

Don't worry about it. I was going to leave this on hold until after the copy edit. Lee Vilenski 15:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Reception

A nice reception section is a definate for a GA. This one is good. I'd mention the sales section should be included here, and the final two sentences should be included in such a section. Lee Vilenski 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Controversial advertising campaigns

  • This section feels a bit weird, when everything else is written in prose, and this is bullets. At the very least, there should be an opening paragraph that states that there were some advertsting campaigns, and whether this is normal for a console release. Lee Vilenski 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Notes & References

Overall impressions

Thank you for working on the technical specifications. That would have been pretty much a complete halt to me passing this as a GA. There are quite a few outstanding issues above, and the article needs a serious copy edit (I'd actually request one at WP:GOCE, before I finish this (That's good practice in general before nominating a GA.)

The issues are missing punctuation - sometimes sentences miss off full stops, or commas; or the wording is really poor. A quick copyeditor would be able to sort this out, but it can take a couple days for someone to look at it. I'm happy to put the remaining review on hold until a copy edit has occurred. Lee Vilenski 11:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, Hi, thanks for the feedback. I corrected all of the issues above and I just put a request in at the Guild of Copy Editors for a copy edit of the article. JC7V (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, The copyedit work for the article has been complete by a member of the CEG,. JC7V (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
JC7V - Ok, I'll take a second look today Lee Vilenski 09:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Second view thoughts

  • "The PlayStation Portable was the most powerful portable system when launched" - This should really say "games console". I'm certain it's not the most powerful portable technology. Lee Vilenski 09:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The PlayStation Portable was the most powerful portable system when launched, just after the Nintendo DS. - The whole sentence doesn't work. This suggests it was the most powerful... But that the DS was more powerful. I think this should say that it was released after the DS, but the sentence only infers this. Lee Vilenski 09:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • ". Its high-end graphics, 4.3-inch (110 mm) viewing screen, and multi-media capabilities made the PlayStation Portable a major mobile entertainment device." - Probably shouldn't mention the exact size of the screen in the lede. Saying it had a large high-end screen is plenty. Lee Vilenski 09:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The whole Games section needs looking at. I'd start with a summary of the games (How many there are), then going into information on the biggest sellers/cult games, etc, before any information on demos. Lee Vilenski 10:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I did a quick edit of a few minor things, and irrelevent section breaks. The games section is by far the biggest issue in this article, as it's super disconnected and not well written. Lee Vilenski 16:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    Lee Vilenski, I'll enlist some help to rewrite it. Give me some more days. I will enlist some 'good article writers' to rewrite it. JC7V (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    Lee Vilenski, I am getting other editors to fix that game section since I am a mere mortal. boo JC7V (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    (Pinged here by JC7V) I do agree that some of the games section is disconnected. I see 10 paragraphs, many of which are short: epicgenius (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    1. Demos
    2. Older games that can be played on PSP
    3. "Minis" - 1 sentence
    4. Greatest Hits
    5. Downloadable games - 1 sentence
    6. Emulation
    7. Demos again - 1 sentence
    8. Launch games
    9. Best-selling games
    10. Best-rated games
    I think this should be split up with one subsection, about the list of games (last 3 paragraphs, plus Greatest Hits). Also consider merging the two demo's paragraphs, and the emulation and "older games" paragraphs. The only one-sentence paragraph will be downloadable games, and I'll leave it to you to decide where to put it. Anyway, just some thoughts. epicgenius (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    Epicgenius, Thanks for the feedback, I've taken your advice and fixed the structure and layout of that section. JC7V (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    Lee Vilenski, Ok, I've taken the feedback from epicgenius and I've restructured the Games section to be better. Is it good or if not what exactly should i fix about it? JC7V (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories: