Talk:Lunar Lander (1979 video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 22:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll even review this one in the next few days. I promise! Indrian (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@PresN: Okay, right off the bat before I do an in depth review there is a gaping hole in converge with the development section. There was a "Making of" in Retro Gamer back in issue 79 that includes a lot of further insight from Rich Moore. Without incorporating material from that source, this article does not meet the "broad in coverage" criteria. Indrian (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Indrian: Aargh, so it is. I completely agree, that would be required. Give me a bit to track it down, please! --PresN 02:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Indrian: Alright, added, though I'm sure I've introduced a few grammar problems. --PresN 04:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions! Let's get this knocked out!

Lead

• "Lunar Lander is a single-player Lunar Lander arcade game" - I know the point being conveyed here, but stating Lunar Lander is a Lunar Lander game probably feels unnecessarily reflexive to the layman and reads somewhat oddly. If you want to call it a "Lunar Lander" game, then perhaps reword it to say "Lunar Lander is a single-player arcade game in the Lunar Lander subgenre."
• "earning points for safe or difficult landings" - Do you earn points for just attempting a difficult landing even if it is unsuccessful, or do you earn points for a safe landing, with more points earned for choosing a more difficult landing zone? The article implies the former, but I believe it is the latter. Probably change this to something like "earning points based on the skillfulness and difficulty of the landing."

Gameplay

• "Lunar Lander is a single-player Lunar Lander game" - Same as above. Even if this is technically correct, it just reads strangely.

I think that does it. Once these changes are made, I think we will be good to go. I'll go ahead and place this  On hold. Indrian (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Indrian: All three done; thanks for the much-needed copyedit! --PresN 22:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I gave the article one more round of polish, and I think we are good to go. Well done! Indrian (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)