Talk:Entombed (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 07:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm on it. Freikorp (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Is 3D isometric the correct term? That's what it says in the lead, yet the body just says "isometric".

   Removed "3D" from the lead JAGUAR  16:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

   "a Great Sphinx" is wikilinked, yet there is only one Great Sphinx, so it should be "the Great Sphinx", which is what appears in the source.

   Good catch, rephrased JAGUAR  16:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

   "attack and defend himself from enemies" - is the attacking move different from the defending move? Clarify.

   I removed "attack" as the attacking animation is the same, and it seemed redundant JAGUAR  16:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

   "which later won him" - can you specify when. Just that the following sentence also uses the term "later" which starts to make the paragraph feel a bit unspecific on details.

   The source doesn't specify when exactly he won the money, so I think removing "later" was the best option JAGUAR  16:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

   You use the term "retrospective interview" in both the prose and the quote box. Perhaps replace the word "retrospective" with the year of the interview in one of these two places. Up to you though.

   Added date JAGUAR  17:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

   I always though "smegged" originated in Red Dwarf, but this review predates the show. My concern is it's a colloquial term than I'm not sure if people outside of the UK will understand, but I suppose there's nothing to link it to other than Smeg (vulgarism), which leads to a Red Dwarf page, not much we can do about that I suppose.

   Me too! I have no idea why the reviewer chose to use the word "smegged" and I still don't know exactly what it means (despite being a Red Dwarf fan for ten years). I really don't know what to do with it, so I've linked it to Smeg (vulgarism). It's possible that it originates prior to the show, seeing as the review and the show pre-dates by three years. JAGUAR  17:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

   Why have you split up the review from Computer Gamer? In the first paragraph the text "A reviewer of Computer Gamer similarly cited the graphics as "excellent", stating that it was "what he expected from an Ultimate game" appears, and at the end of the second paragraph "A reviewer of Computer Gamer criticised the overall gameplay, stating it to be "very boring" and 'slowly smegged'" appears. You'll need to merge the review together.

   It's one of my editing habits. I organise reception sections by principle (eg. critics liked graphics, criticised gameplay) rather than by author. In this case I put the graphics in the first paragraph and criticisms of the gameplay in the second. But I do see what you mean, the Computer Gamer review was the only one I've re-used and it does seem odd here. I've changed it to your suggestion JAGUAR  17:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

   Can you confirm that the Computer Gamer review awarded the game 3 out of 3 stars? That doesn't seem right considering the criticism.

   Oops! I just forgot to add "3|5" to the template. Fixed JAGUAR  17:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   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 till issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for the review, Freikorp! I believe all issues are addressed. If I have missed anything out, please let me know. Rest assured, I'll get to reviewing your articles at GAN shortly. JAGUAR  17:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks great, passing this one now. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)