Talk:007: Licence to Kill

Latest comment: 8 years ago by 85.23.238.234 in topic Reassessment

Added screenshot

edit

[1] I believe fair use covers it here so there shouldn't be any problems. I added a gameplay section to make it more specific to the article Vynwood (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reassessment

edit

Came here via the reassessment request in the talk page template; bumping this up to C-class. Some ideas for improvement follow:

  • There should not be any citations in the lead; everything that's in the lead should be a summary of something that's in the rest of the article (and cited there)
  • Mobygames is not a reliable source, as it is user-contributed
  • "Platforms" is not a usual section header; it should probably be "Development"
  • Try to avoid single-sentence paragraphs.
  • Reception is a little quote-heavy
  • In order to make it to B-class (this is on the low side of C right now) there needs to be more information- gameplay basically just says "this is a shmup" without really explaining the gameplay, development only covers the ports, and reception is a few pull quotes from different reviewers. It may be quite difficult to get any more information- this is a 1989 tie-in game- but gameplay, at least, should be possible.
  • Like most articles, a copy-edit pass wouldn't be amiss for grammar problems and wonky sentences
  • --PresN 15:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I moved the citations from the lead to another suitable places and replaced the Mobygames citation with the other citation from the lead section, as they had pretty much the same information. 85.23.238.234 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply