Talk:Austerlitz (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hellknowz (talk · contribs) 00:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Some extra reviews:

• Amiga Computing #23, p40
• Amiga Format #8, p53
• Amiga Power #9, p105
• Australian Commodore and Amiga Review, V8N2, p.73, part of Mind Games
• Power Play (German) #24, p 87, short; #25, p105 p87, short

Probably missing a few due to volatile searching. Probably a few more hits on Mind Games in later years, haven't checked. Are you sure it's 1990? Development section is very scarce, I can see it's on multiple systems, they usually get different dates. Sales lists are crammed with the game's name before 1990, though many can be preorders. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hellknowz: thanks for the review! I've added all of the additional reviews you mentioned except Power Play, as I couldn't find the German version (I did find a UK Commodore Power Play, but it was before 1990). Even so, I'm not sure how I could implement that in the article if it doesn't have a html translation. Regarding the date, most sources actually pin it to 1990, but MobyGames (I know, the most unreliable site) says it was first released in the UK in late 1989, and the rest of Europe in 1990. They're usually spot on with dates, so I went with it. I don't know if it was first released in late 1989 or early 1990, but I could change it to the latter? I'll do some more searching about that. The development is always very scarce on these games, in fact it's something of a minor miracle if I can find a snippet of information. I usually go with the background of the company to make it suffice. JAGUAR  18:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll correct myself, the majority of primary sources state that the game was released in 1989, and the Mirror Image (budget release) was in 1991. JAGUAR  18:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Power Play is super-short [1], ocr. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added its score to the review box. I don't know how to add that in the prose, as I can't read German (as well as it being short). JAGUAR  18:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Preview in Crash #66, p.49
• Full review in Your Sinclair, #45, p.44
• Also ZX Computing #23, p.40 -- This is August 1986, Spectrum 128 game by Lothlorien, I assume no connection, but mentioning just in case. Theatre Europe cites the next page in this issue for its review. (edit conflict) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the Crash preview in the article, although it doesn't mention any content. The Your Sinclair review is about a different game (Austerlitz 1805), released in 1989 too. Also, the 1986 is different too, I did come across that when looking for sources when I created this a while back. JAGUAR  18:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, I'm parsing those really quickly. I saw a big full-page "Austerlitz" and got excited. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Following the end of the war, the world became subject to Pax Britannica." -- possibly I'm just terrible at history, but this gave me no context to what exactly it meant for the game. End or what war, how did it for from Austerlitz village to world, is this what happens if you win?

• I see what you mean, I've removed both cases of Pax Britannica from the article. It doesn't seem relevant enough to the battle of this village JAGUAR  13:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Gameplay intro should explain a bit more what is fictional and what is real -- like, where does history intro become gameplay.

• I've tried to disambiguate the history intro from gameplay starting from " In the game, the battle itself begins at 7am on 2 December 1805 and is played out in a series of turns" JAGUAR  13:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think that's sufficient to clear it up. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• "The game allows which side the player wishes to choose at the beginning..." -- very awkwardly phrased

• Rephrased JAGUAR  13:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Gameplay has a lot of passive voice

• Done some rephrasing JAGUAR  13:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• "..must issue a command..." -- must or can?

• Rephrased JAGUAR  13:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• "In order to move a unit, the player must issue a command." -- this says the same thing as last sentences in previous para

• Removed repetition JAGUAR  13:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• "The orders of a moving unit" -- this implies you can queue orders, since "move" was previously listed as discrete order

• As far as I'm aware there are no queues in the game, so I removed the plural to "orders" JAGUAR  13:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Haha, serious deja vu reading Background

• I agree. It's always a shame that nothing ever exists on development, but I know that it can't be helped. Writing a (already scarce) background on the company has to be the only other alternative. Even details on the management itself is hard to find! JAGUAR  13:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• "The game was first previewed..." - how do you know this?

• Good point, although it was the earliest mention I could find, I don't know if it was the first. I removed "first" JAGUAR  13:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• "expressed concern over the pace of the game" -- in what way -- too slow, too fast?

• Slow pace, addressed JAGUAR 

• "3D interpretations" -- not sure what exactly this means

• Too complex, changed to "3D presentation" JAGUAR  14:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Too many quotes, such as the ACE one with 3 in one sentence. The few word phrases can be unquoted or paraphased. "seasoned wargamers happy as pigs in mud" is probably the only one that gives any flavour to justify inclusion.

• I have a bad habit of doing this. I've removed a few obvious once which definitely sound better unquoted, and also paraphrased a few. I've left a couple of quotes in such as "last thing" and "great", which can be seen as unencyclopedic. JAGUAR  14:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Seems good. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• File:Austerlitz_gameplay.gif -- is the weird white border part of the game?

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Cropped JAGUAR  14:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hellknowz: thanks for the review! I've tried to address everything. I've done some paraphrasing/copyediting throughout the article. Shame about the background section, I'm always eager to expand info on the company if I could find the information. I've spent hours searching, and even well known developers like Ocean Software have little or no information on their company. JAGUAR  14:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's some hits for PSS:

• [2] Amstrad Action #6
• [3] Crash #5
• [4] Your Commodore #2

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I've already added a bit more to the background section. I'll be sure to put it to good use for future PSS articles too. JAGUAR  17:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll let you know if I stumble on any PSS stuff. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• "with national controversy" -- what kind of controversy? If this implies looking at target article, then I see Theatre Europe saying "controversy" in lead only and Battle of Britain not mentioning it at all, at least not explicitly.

• Removed "national" (vague) and Battle of Britain, as the article doesn't mention enough on why that game wasn't liked among some players - it only says that some readers sent in letters saying it was "obnoxious" JAGUAR  16:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• I might be inventing things here, but are awards like "New Business Enterprise Award" italicized?

• I think you're right, although the article didn't italicise them. I've done so now JAGUAR  16:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• "research the topic of the desired game" -- I get what "desired" means, but it seems a bit... off. It raises question about who desired it and how do we know this and such. May be "upcoming" or just no word?

• "Upcoming" sounds better, I've used that JAGUAR  16:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Austerlitz was developed by Peter Turcan" -- probably should come sooner before all the stuff about company closing down.

• Good catch; removed JAGUAR  16:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hellknowz: thanks for the additional comments! I think I've clarified those points now. I'll definitely add more for upcoming PSS articles, when I get to creating them. JAGUAR  16:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

   Prose issues addressed above.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Reception completeness addressed above.

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Everything looks good to me. Only point is that the article is shortish, but there's no more sources to expand and the content in existing sources is not extensive. Still, this is beyond most video games of the time. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'm thankful I managed to make Theatre Europe long-ish at least. JAGUAR  16:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)