Jump to content

Talk:Space Cavern/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 21:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have this to you by the weekend czar  21:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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
I would take that quote to mean with the intent of seeing Demon Attack czar  00:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • titles of games like Space Invaders are italicized, not quoted
  • Out of GA scope, but the Reception could use some cleanup to be more to the point. The Arcade review repeats the infobox score and says it's positive too—lots of redundancy. The score outside of the infobox is superfluous. What is "just a lark"? The quotes can also be greatly reduced or paraphrased
  • The sources from above should help with broadness
  • Two-player mode not mentioned in prose
  • Images were marked as low-res but their length times width was greater than 100k, so I tagged as non-free reduce
  • Would you know who owns the copyright to these games now? I can inquire about getting free-use images
    • Not sure. Games by Apollo copyrighted them, but they went out of business. None of their programmers appear to still be active in the video game business. I'd say it's a gray area, and I certainly would have no idea where to go about contacting people. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I gave it a shot, but Salvo isn't publicly on the Internet, Digital Press had no real means of contact, and searching for the interviewer just got progressively weirder and weirder so I'm letting it be for now czar  01:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is close—just some clarity concerns, a bad source, and could use some extra perspective for its broadness czar  21:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I didn't agree with your decision to move the stuff about the closure since it had little to do with the development, so I put it back. Care to discuss? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a content issue unrelated to the GAN, we can do it on the talk page. Let me know when you're finished with the rest of the review czar  00:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Weiss mentioned Shaggy Marsupods as an enemy type. Not sure if that's something worth including with the Electrosauri. czar  12:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I believe I've addressed all of your points. Thank you for the review. Please let me know if there's anything else I need to do. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gameplay variations still need to be explained. Are they separate gameplay modes that are chosen? How do players shuffle between them? etc.
  • "just a lark" still needs to be clarified or removed

czar  17:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Taylor Trescott, ping (just in case) czar  12:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar, ping Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good work czar  21:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]