Talk:Light Force/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) 10:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to tackle this over the weekend, seems managable.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1. Is it well-written?

Some minor stuff I came up with...

Lede

• ...published under Gargoyle Games' Faster Than Light imprint. --> ...published under their Faster Than Light imprint.
  • Done. GamerPro64 18:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• no need to name the magazines in the lede, as they are mentioned in the reception section. Your Sinclair named it one of the best Spectrum games, move that to the reception section and source it.
  • Done. GamerPro64 18:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Gameplay

• a little more detail about the actual gameplay would be good (specific mechanics, are the bosses etc.)
  • I added a little more. Overall this is a pretty barebones game in of itself. GamerPro64 18:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• the article talks about five areas, yet only mentions four.
  • Added. GamerPro64 18:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Development

• are there any differences between versions?
  • Besides graphics and audio limitations I don't think so. GamerPro64 18:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• has it been made available through collections, download etc. for current players/enthusiasts?
  • Its on the Wayback Machine, as shown in the External links section. GamerPro64 18:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

Yes, as it is usual with these articles, mostly old magazines but a great effort was made to make them available online.

Actually, this article states that there are five levels in Light Force, but having just played through it myself I can confirm that there are only four levels (Asteroid Belt, Jungle Planet, Orbiting Platforms, and Ice Planet), before the game cycles the levels again. This probably stems from the Crash magazine review (issue 34, page 16) incorrectly stating that there are "five sections". I believe that Crash actually got this wrong and printed an error, and that this factual inaccuracy has transferred to this article. So stating that old magazines are a reliable source of factual information isn't correct. And I say this as an ex-magazine editor of a magazine of some repute. Details printed in magazines are not always correct. Mallo (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

The article is very short. I am aware that with these games, information is scarce, but the questions I raised thoughout the review could help enlarge the article.

4. Is it neutral?

Yes.

5. Is it stable?

Yes.

6. Is it illustrated?

Yes.

Conclusion

Overall, a well-researched, yet short article. Should pass though, if the points above are adressed.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Passed.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)