Talk:Neopets
 | Neopets was a 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Wikiproject videogames assessment
I've increased the rating to B, not a rock-solid B but getting there. Here's some suggestions:
- Gameplay does not adequately convey the 'point' of the game, yes you can make a pet, care for it and enter it into fights, but what are players aiming to do? The section is tiny in comparison to the site content are (which contains some gameplay data).
- The history section is very good, but would preferably be named development and be situated after gameplay rather than before it.
- Reception is lacking reviews etc., it does carry good data in terms of user numbers, but needs some reaction to gameplay.
- The entire 'site content' section is confused, in a section like this I'd expect to read about things outside of the game itself, yet the 'neopets', 'environment' and 'economy' subsections contain gameplay data. At the start of it there is irrelevant details ("The site includes a navigation bar along the top of the page.."), it just doesn't fit together very well. I'd suggest merging relevant data to gameplay (under subheadings if they're needed) and merging 'site contents intro, 'exclusive content' and 'community' into a single section.
- Images are a weak area in the article. The shot of the webpage isn't needed in the infobox since the logo does all that's needed in identifying the game. The room shot is.. well to say it's unspectacular is an understatement. Is that all players can expect to see, or can the pets be shown in the room along with more furniture? I'm non-plussed over the neoboard topic image - what are readers supposed to be gaining from this image? Boards have topics, it's a board and it has topics, an image is not needed to convey that, particularly not a whacking great fair use image. I'd suggest getting rid of the webpage one from the infobox and the boards one altogether, finding a better room image if possible and adding a few gameplay images instead.
- The lead's pretty good, but would need a few more details from reception regarding the actual gameplay (assuming you can find some).
- Watch out for really short paragraphs and merge them if at all possible.
- Try to position citations after punctuation marks rather than leaving them floating amongst the text. Keep sewing up any loose ends with additional cites.
You might want to consider going for a peer review or resubmitting it to assessments before going for a GA push. Someoneanother 20:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Gameplay does not adequately convey the 'point' of the game, yes you can make a pet, care for it and enter it into fights, but what are players aiming to do?"
We might have a problem about that. Fitting you should point that out first in the list of things this article is lacking. With Tamagotchi, which is mentioned in comparison to Neopets in this article, the point is clear: Keep your pet well-fed and happy, and then do the same thing with their offspring. Repeat ad infinitum (sp?). Pokemon? Defeat leaders and find new Pokemon. With Neopets, that's different. Some people just aim to chat and be well-known, some want to be rich, some want to win spotlights, etc. The question is, should we add all of that in, making a very long and rambling gameplay section, or just skip over it all? Or just add a few points? If so, which ones? Until we've figured this issue out, maybe we could add bits about those using the hidden-comment tags or post them here or something. Thanks, Clem (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
"Techo" redirects here
Why is that? This word is not mentioned in the article. -- 217.230.198.25 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Techo is a species of Neopet, which would be why it redirects here. SuperHamster (My Talk) (My Contributions) 02:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Bashing in Lead
I removed this from the lead:
While the site has been praised for being "gentle" and educational, several issues such as immersive advertising and gambling-based games have garnered criticism. Adverts that break the site's own rules are displayed as soon as a person registers. Before logging in, the default page is presented with two adverts, usually displaying lingerie or online poker, but these display seemingly harmless Neopets games. These have garnered major concern and crtiscism from parents who want their children to be "protected from filth, especially on Neopets". It seems unlikely that the adverts will be taken down, as the site owners receieve a massive amount of money for them.
- I don't think I need to explain way, it is pretty obvious.
- Also, a little side note: I play everyday, and I never see lingerie or gambling ads. Derickl (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Derick
- I see lingerie ads all the time. Neopets has no control over this because they have third party ad providers, so this bashing is REALLY unneccesary and whoever wrote it probaby sucks at the game or is a lowlife. Not to be super rude about it. 69.201.159.52 (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, a little side note: I play everyday, and I never see lingerie or gambling ads. Derickl (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Derick
Semi-protection?
Out of curiosity, I checked the edit history page for the article and saw that most of the (frequent) vandalism was coming from people without accounts, and decided to propose semi-protection for the Neopets article against anonymous and new users. The vandalism is mostly easily fixed, but I don't see why we should just let ClueBot keep on reverting this page over and over again. I'm pretty sure semi-protection has been suggested before, but since I didn't see it on this talk page I wanted to post it. If it hasn't been suggested before, what's your opinion? If it has been, what was used to refute the protection? Thanks, Clem (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- The page has been semi-protected during heavy vandalism, however in general, articles are not kept under it. It should almost always only be a temporary measure done during the worse times. Right now, there is not enough recent disturbance to justify making a request. To learn more about this, see Wikipedia:Protection policy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thank you! Clem (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
There is something that needs to be said regarding Neopets banning all kinds of accounts with disregard for their TOS. There are BBB and other advocacy watchgroups with large files on Neopets because of all the frozen accounts for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.123.250 (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Donna?
From the little sidebar thing:
"Designer(s) Adam Powell"
From the lead:
"Neopets (originally NeoPets) is a virtual pet website launched by Adam Powell and Donna Williams."
Then shouldn't Donna be listed as one of the designers? She helped create the site as well. Thanks, Clem (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- She helped create it, but per the reliable sources Adam designed it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)