Talk:Iwo Jima (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maplestrip (talk · contribs) 12:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Well-written: ? See comments
2. Verifiable with no original research: Y Well sourced, managed to check all but one, looks good.
3. Broad in its coverage: Y Covers all main aspects of the game: content, creation and reception.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Y No issues.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Y No issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y Fair use of images is appropriate. Images look good in the article

Comments

• Is "The title screen of the game is a recreation of the famous raising of the US flag photograph on Iwo Jima" supported by any of the article's sources? Odd to see this in the lead, but nowhere else.

• I've removed this from the lead and have added something else in its place, just to make up for lost space JAGUAR  16:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Is "The player also has the ability to order air strikes against the enemy, although weather permits" grammatically correct? Should it not say "...if weather permits"?

• Good catch, rephrased to if weather permits JAGUAR  18:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• "... on one of six beaches of the island" would't it be "... on one of the six beaches on the island"?

• Fixed JAGUAR  16:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• I was not able to verify the following line: "The decision was falsely interpreted as "pull-out" from the Spectrum market by a video game journalist." I assume good faith that this interpretation both exists and is incorrect, but it would be nice if someone could quote the paragraph on which this line is based. "a video game journalist" is also not particularly specific.

• Found it. Phillipa Irving (a good journalist that is featured in all these old articles I write) believed that they were "pulling out" from the market. I've rephrased and added the magazine page JAGUAR  18:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't expect this to work out this well. Good find! ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 08:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Gwyn Hughes "speculated" that Iwo Jima was unlikely to provide a major challenge to some. "Speculate" falls under the words to watch and I was wondering if "noted" or "believed" would be a better way to phrase it. The use of "unlikely" already makes clear that it may not always be the case.

• Reworded to "believed" JAGUAR  16:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Gary Rook of Sinclair User asserted that the game was overall "competent" however he summarised it as "failing to excite"." seems to be missing some kind of punctuation; perhaps a comma before "however".

• Done JAGUAR  16:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Rook also added that the game was well implemented despite being "inspiring"." — is it rare for "inspiring" games to be well implemented? How are these two terms related?

I see how this sounds contradicting. Rephrased to Rook also added that the game was well implemented and "inspiring"

• The ZX Computing reviewer said very similar things to the Your Sinclair reviewer. I believe the two should be combined somehow. Both reviewers think it is a great introduction to the genre, but too easy for experienced wargamers. I feel like I am reading the same content twice.

• I agree. I've never tried merging two reviewers in the prose, but I gave it a shot JAGUAR  19:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• "awkward mechanism" is never defined. Which mechanism is "awkward"? Seeing as it is apparently something specific, I feel it should be explained a bit better or left out completely.

• I think he was regarding it awkward because the game featured no ability to save itself. Elaborated JAGUAR  19:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• <s?...Computer Gamer is saying the exact same things as ZX Computing and Your Sinclair. The reception section keeps repeating itself.

• Early video game reviewers of the 1980s seem to have had no standards of writing, at least a lot of it is very shabby compared to critics today. Some old reviews I found were so informal that I had to either ignore them completely or write down the bare essentials. I'm not sure what I should do with Computer Gamer, I know that the reviewer is echoing on what the others have said but I think that the reception section has to portray what they think about the game, even if it sounds repetitive. He did mention that the rules and controls were simple, so I've rephrased it to that JAGUAR  19:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think you did really well with these sources. In general, if multiple reviewers give the same arguments, pointing this out explicitly is more useful than spreading the same opinions out over multiple paragraphs. It now looks a lot better ^_^

I would like to see the prose in the reception section become less repetitive before passing this article. The issue isn't huge, but reading the exact same sentence with minor variations three times is not appropriate. I'll put the review on hold for now. ~Mable (chat) 12:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Maplestrip! I've attempted to address everything. The only issue I found was the Computer Gamer review, which although sounds repetitive to what other reviewers said, I managed to find that he also praised the controls and rules, so I added that in, if that's OK. Everything else should be clarified. Luckily I found the actual missing scan of something in the background section, so I added that in too! JAGUAR  19:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The new content is very useful~ You did a great job and it definitely deserves to be GA now! It must have been hard to find the sources for this. I'll just finish the process up, so congratulations ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 08:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Mable! I was pleasantly surprised that I found the magazine scan I was looking for. It should help me with similar articles in the future. JAGUAR  15:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)