Talk:Bismarck (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 13:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Lede

• "It was later ported to Amiga, Apple II, Atari ST and Atari 8-bit home computers in both the United Kingdom and the United States the following year. " -you don't need to say both later and the following year in the same sentence. You can remove "later".

• Removed JAGUAR  14:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• "though" would fit better than "however"

• Done JAGUAR  14:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Gameplay

• " The feature can be displayed at any time, however it is automatically enabled if either side comes into conflict." -again I think however can be avoided.

• Replaced with "though" JAGUAR  14:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• " The Bismarck is able to withstand 99 points of damage, however " -and again

• Removed JAGUAR  14:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• "f fires occur, the player is given the option to order fire-fighting crews to contain the blaze, however" ;-)

• Too many howevers! Rephrased JAGUAR  14:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Background

• "in what Cockayne admitted in a retrospective interview that" -awkward phrasing

• Rephrased this JAGUAR  14:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Reception

• "A reviewer of Computer and Video Games said that the game was "historically good", however their only criticism was the unsuitability of using a joystick for the game, which was deemed "virtually unusable"." -would read better as "A reviewer of Computer and Video Games stated that the game was "historically good". Their only criticism was the unsuitability of using a joystick for the game, which they deemed "virtually unusable"."

• Changed, thanks! JAGUAR  14:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Regarding the arcade aspect of the game, Rook noted that there was "certainly" enough action in it, but was sceptical if it was a "true" wargame." -don't need to quote "certainly", try wording it as "Regarding the arcade aspect of the game, Rook noted that the level of action in it was sufficient, but was skeptical that it was a "true" wargame."

• Rephrased to the suggestion JAGUAR  14:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: thanks for the review! I think I've addressed everything, unless you had any other comments to make? Even though these articles are compact, I think they're surprisingly comprehensive for being 30 years old and made in people's bedrooms! It's surprising enough that these old video games have more coverage on reception than newer ones. Some anoraks out there! JAGUAR  14:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)