Talk:Nidhogg (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 06:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I played this at a party held by my college's video game club once last year, between the endless Brawl and Skullgirls rounds. It was certainly different and interesting, so I think I'll take up the review. Looks nice overall, though I haven't dug into the prose yet. Tezero (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• "The release version of the game includes new mechanics like dive kicking, wall jumping, ledge climbing, and crawling." - Any pre-release versions haven't yet been covered in the text. Please reword or introduce the pre-release version (though this would really fit better in Development).
• "The player continually pushes towards one side of the screen, such that the player is permitted a few seconds to run towards their opponent's side while their opponent respawns after dying." - Why use "the player" a second time if you're okay with "their"? Seems kinda stilted.
• "and Meshof felt lucky to have Daedelus as the game's composer." - Relevance? Is there a better way to introduce Daedelus?
• "Messhof considers the single-player to be training for the online multiplayer, which he considered training for live matches." - Why the tense shift?
• Any more information about the music? It's a free-use image, sure, but part of a sentence seems a little thin to justify an image of Daedelus.
• You know how I feel about reviewer-by-reviewer organization, but I won’t contest it. Reception in general could go a bit more into detail considering the number of reviews, but again, not an issue for GA.
• I'll put the article on hold for these minor prose issues.

Tezero (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero, done. Let me know what you think? Thanks for the review! (As for the reviewer-by-reviewer, I think that can be taken both ways [either patchwork from each reviewer or each reviewer having their own paragraph]. Anyway, I think this batch of articles takes the most important stuff from each article and attempts to not waste space on formality unless it's particularly helpful. czar ♔ 02:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, czar, what you've done is great. You and I tend to lie at opposite ends of the complete vs. brief continuum among what's acceptable for GAs/FAs, but this does look nice and sometimes fluff just distracts from the focus. Passing. Tezero (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)