Talk:Pegasus Bridge (video game)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pegasus Bridge (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 05:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this article for a review as I love reading about older video games! Will have comments up in a couple days. Aoba47 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• Remove the comma after Second World War as it is unnecessary. You can either do that or separate the sentence into two if you feel that it is running too long.

• Done JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Change "all games" to "all of the games"

• Done JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Remove comma after Normandy

• Removed JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Be more specific about the reception. This is just the lead, but it should give the reader a clear understanding of the rest of the article. What about the graphics was praised? What was the major bug (did it block progress? crash the game? alter the graphics?) Since it is the lead, again it does not have to be too in-depth, but clarification is required.

• I've specified what was praised about the graphics and the bug in both the lead and reception section. It's just that I've been told in numerous reviews to leave the objectives out of the reception part of the lead, but I prefer to include them anyway, so I'm happy to add them JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why you did not put Strategic Wargames as the series in the infobox?

• Oops, completely forgot this time. Added JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Gameplay

• Image needs an Alt.

• Added JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Restructure the following sentence as it reads awkwardly ("At the beginning of the game, the British 6th Airborne Division have not yet made their parachute drops, thus no British units appear on the map, regardless of the side chosen.") You can use something like "Regardless of the side chosen, British units will not appear on the map at the beginning of the game. This is because the British 6th Airborne Division have not yet made their parachute drops." This is just a suggestion, but the sentence needs some work.

• Thanks, I've used this suggestion and rephrased it slightly JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Clarify "remote corners." Are you referring to "remote corners" of the map screen? Are they distributed to "remote corners" at random? Make sure the meaning is clar.

• Changed to "distributed around the four far corners of the map". Also fixed a typo JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Remove comma after squares.

• Removed JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Reword the last sentence as it reads awkwardly. You can do something like the following "While British forces can destroy various bridges during the game, certain bridges Caen Canal and Orne river must be preserved in order to win the game." This is just a suggestion, but the sentence is very choppy as it is awkwardly split in half by the transition "however" so it needs minor work.

• Thanks, I've used this suggestion but tweaked it. It sounds a lot better this way JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Background

• Remove coma after Informatique

• Done JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Clarify the meaning of this sentence (" Some games of the series were met with controversy upon release, such as Theatre Europe.") Why were some of the games met with controversy? Also, how does this connect with Pegasus Bridge?

• I thought it was better to remove this sentence, you're right, it didn't seem relevant JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Otherwise, great work and a very informative read.

• Thanks! It was difficult to find such information on a small company like this. JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Reception

• Again, clarifying the "major bug". The quote from Owen Bishop is excellent and should be kept, but I am still not entirely certain what the "major bug" is referring to.

• I've elaborated this. It merely crashes the whole game JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Restructure the following sentence as it reads awkwardly " However, Irving praised its graphics and historical accuracy, stating that it was "attractive" and clearly based on the historical situation, although it was "unatmospheric". The final bit about the atmosphere seems tacked on and could be more clearly integrated in the sentence (you could use it as a contrast with her quote about the game being "attractive").

• I see what you mean. I've added "unatmospheric" after "attractive", to add contrast JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

References

• I am very impressed with the research put into this page! While this is not required for GAN, I would highly encourage you to archive all the resources when doable to avoid dead/broken links in the future.

• I've archived all of the webpages, however the magazine scans couldn't be archived. It's safe to say the Internet Archive will never fall, so I think that should be fine JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Final comments

@Jaguar: This is a very strong article and a very interesting read. There are just some areas that need to be revised for clarify and flow/sentence structure, but other than that, it should be a quick and easy pass once all my comments are addressed. I am impressed especially since this was added and edited so quickly. Great work! Aoba47 (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thank you for the review! Yeah, I enjoy writing these old 80s games as surprisingly, they're the most well covered because of all the scans people have uploaded to the internet over the years. And the ZX Spectrum had a huge following back in the 80s, so games released for that system are well documented (except on Wikipedia, which is what I'm trying to do). I believe I've addressed everything. I've archived all of the refs except the scans, as sadly they can't be archived. I think it should be fine though. Thanks again for the quick review. JAGUAR  15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Great work! Good luck with your future work on video game articles. I look forward to it. Thank you for your quick responses to my comments. ✓ Pass

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

GA Reassessment

Pegasus Bridge (video game)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The article's information is supported by three cited sources. Whilst the article is well-written and three sources is sufficient for general notability, the fairly large sourcing limitations make it difficult to assess that the article is capable of providing broad coverage or giving appropriate weight to its sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delist I am dubious that the broad in scope criteria is passed. There is no development information and slim reception, it feels somewhat incomplete. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Delist: Thank you for the notification on my talk page. I was the original GAN reviewer for this article. I was still a very new Wikipedia editor at the time so I fully admit that I did not do a great job here. It appears that the citations from the version of the article I had reviewed (here) were removed though, which is odd, but the article in its current state does not meet the criteria for a GA. Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  It seems to have been removed because it was more about the company than the game itself. I don't think wholesale deletion was the way to fix it, as that left a hole in the article. I do think it could stand to be more focused on the development of that particular game though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me, and I agree with your point on both aspects. I do not think wholesale deletion was the best option, but I agree that more focus (and ideally more sources) on this particular game would be best. Aoba47 (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just passing by here, but there is also a review section that only contains the name of the magazine with a source that leads to the review. I feel like it could be better if it was merged with the reception section, but it appears to have been added after the original GA review. Blue Jay (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• A lot of the articles for games by PSS were like this, many were listed as good articles but don't really seem that good; the development sections of most of them largely just copied a paragraph from the main PSS article, for instance. I'm adding my thoughts to this because I was the one who cleaned up most of those, which did shorten them significantly but it felt wrong to leave them the way they were. Sorry I haven't tried fixing them up, there should be a fair amount of sources for some in some old magazines. --Ringtail Raider (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)