GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 14:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review. Freikorp (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

1. 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 JAGUAR  14:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

   "Pssst is the second game" - do you think that should be was the second game?

   Fixed JAGUAR  14:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

   "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 JAGUAR  14:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

   "It was placed 40th on the "Best Software of All Time" list by Personal Computer Games." When?

   December 1983, added JAGUAR  14:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

   "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 JAGUAR  15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

   " 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 JAGUAR  15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

   " 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 JAGUAR  15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

   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! JAGUAR  15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

2. 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 JAGUAR  15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. 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)

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. JAGUAR  15:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Great work, i'm happy for this to pass now. 🙂 Freikorp (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)