Talk:Halo 2600/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. I didn't realise that this kind of "demaking" (a word I stole from a category the article's in...) was a thing. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way to get across in the lead that the Atari is ancient history at this point? And is "beating" games not a little informal?
Is there anything resembling a plot?
Is K.O. Cruiser notable? If so, don't be scared of redlinks
"Kotaku and Destructoid called it an entertaining diversion." Can I recommend attributing these views to the particular journalists/critics you're quoting? Also, be consistent in your use of italics.
Why the hidden comment? Do you not trust the source?
I wonder if "Reception and legacy" (as a title) might capture the contents of the section a bit better?

That's all that occurs to me from a first look; please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, J Milburn, thanks for taking the time to do the review.

Adjusted "beating" to "completing". I added in a bit to the lead that the Atari came out in 1977, and added a line in the development section that emphasizes that despite being a very old console it's got a homebrew fanbase. Does that address your issue?
There's no plot to speak of. I dunno if you'd actually understand what you're playing if you weren't familiar with Halo or had read the box, really.
From my quick search K.O. Cruiser doesn't really seem like there's much for an article. Do you think it's best left out of the list if it's not really notable by itself (more just the fact that other Atari games are still being made?)
Added the reviewers' names.
The hidden comment was because I'm unfamiliar with the charts and don't really know if they'd stand up to scrutiny as a reliable source. Do you have any opinions on the matter?
Retitled the Reception section per your suggestion.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments on the chart: I'd lean towards not including it, to be quite honest. It's more a "here's what we're selling" than a "here's an official chart". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1997]? 165.161.18.224 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a few more thoughts:

I think this article is in the wrong place in the navbox. I feel that the various unofficial games need to be together. I suppose this is a bit beyond the remit of a GA review, but something to think on, perhaps.
Is hardcoregamer a reliable source?
I'm getting a fair few hits on Google Scholar. Have you had a sift through them?

Other than that, I think this article looks great. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Pinging you in case this was missed. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Thanks for the ping, it was missed :) Per your suggestion I created a new unofficial media section in the navbox. I've gone through the Scholar hits previously, most are just minor "this thing exists" stuff in the context of the games as art stuff or the demake scene, or else listing in encyclopedia-style listings. Hardcore gamer I could take or leave, it's only being used for the poster citation, but it's a pretty long-established site, it's got a named and set staff list, with the editor-in-chief having done time at GamePro and IGN. I dunno if I'd say it's the highest threshold RS, but I think it meets RS criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great; very happy with your response, so happy to go ahead and promote the article. Good work! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]