From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article (
|
visual edit |
history ) ·
Article talk (
|
history ) ·
Watch
Reviewer:
Freikorp (
talk ·
contribs )
14:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
I will review.
Freikorp (
talk )
14:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Is it reasonably well written ?
A. Prose is "
clear and
concise ", without
copyvios , or spelling and grammar errors:
B.
MoS compliance for
lead ,
layout ,
words to watch ,
fiction , and
lists :
Perhaps mention in the lead that Tim and Chris are brothers, but up to you.
Done
JAG
UAR
14:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
"Pssst is the second game" - do you think that should be was the second game?
Fixed
JAG
UAR
14:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
"The game received positive reviews upon release" - Considering only 'Home Computing Weekly' and 'Personal Computer Games' seem to have reviewed it upon release, I think you should reword to say it received positive reviews specifically from these two publications.
Yeah, the shortage of reviews is a nightmare! And there were only a handful of gaming magazines in 1983. Repharased
JAG
UAR
14:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
"It was placed 40th on the "Best Software of All Time" list by Personal Computer Games." When?
December 1983, added
JAG
UAR
14:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
"three types of alien insect" - why is the word "alien" relevant? And can you clarify what makes the insects different?
Clarified. "Alien" sounded a bit gimmicky and the insects are only differently coloured
JAG
UAR
15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
" the player will be able to the next level" - huh? Did you mean the player will be able to advance to the next level?
Oops. Fixed
JAG
UAR
15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
" or they make contact with an insect" - define contact, will a life be lost if the insect touches any part of the plant?
Clarified, only if the player makes contact with an insect
JAG
UAR
15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
I think the retrospective review should be placed at the end of the section, in chronological order. And it would be good if you could flesh out the review a little.
Done, I've fleshed it out as much as possible. The reviewer's "review" of the game was one sentence long!
JAG
UAR
15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Is it factually accurate and
verifiable ?
A. Has an
appropriate reference section :
B. Citation to reliable sources
where necessary :
Is there a source for "Thyrgodian Megga Chrisanthodil"?
There is a source from
Angelfire , but I'm not sure if it's reliable as it's not mentioned on
WP:VG/RS . I decided not to risk it so I removed the name of the plant from the article
JAG
UAR
15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
C.
No original research :
Is it broad in its coverage ?
A.
Major aspects :
B.
Focused :
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
tagged with their
copyright status , and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content :
B. Images are provided if possible and are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions :
Overall :
Pass or Fail: Placing on hold until issues are addressed. Well done overall on the article.
Freikorp (
talk )
14:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Thanks for the review,
Freikorp ! I think I've addressed everything. I remember that this article was very frustrating to write as I spent over an hour just to scrape some reviews. The game was misspelled Psst , Psssst and Pssssst in virtually every publication, so that made it even more difficult to find reviews. The longest extract I could find was just a snippet. I have no idea why this game has less coverage than other Ultimate games.
JAG
UAR
15:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Great work, i'm happy for this to pass now. :)
Freikorp (
talk )
22:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
reply