Talk:The King of Fighters '99

Reference material

Found this: Game Informer review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Windows

Does it really has windows version? Or someone confuses console emulator with native version...? 87.79.167.201 (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it may have only been released in places like Japan or Korea. Though both Japanese and English language versions exist. I'll try to add info if I find a reliable enough source. Theclaw1 (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The King of Fighters '99/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 22:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TeenAngels1234 (talk · contribs) 22:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this. Stay tuned.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the extreme delay.

• "he trying to spread new content". Is trying the best consecutio temporum here? Maybe tried is better? I'm just asking, since English technically is not my first language.
  • Reworded
• "The characters were decided within the team". What do you mean with this?
  • Done
• "With the Strikes, SNK aimed to give the player idea for new combos". As the first point: is ideas better?
  • Reworded
• "He thought that there will be some things that will come up, but he was still worried". Again, isn't a better consecutio temporum for the part in italics?
  • Done
• "Ono still had worries about how the game would be received". Quite trivial. Every artist has worries about how their art will be received, I guess.
  • Done
• I would suggest to remove the heavy use of passive voice for Release. X published, X released, X wrote, are better than X was published, X was released, and so on.
  • Done.

@Tintor2:That's all for now. The lead, the plot/characters and the gameplay sections look good to me. I only need to read Reception.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC) @TeenAngels1234: Thanks for the notes. Revised everything.Tintor2 (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I read again the article and I have just some doubts:

• "...also called "KOF '99"". Why the ""?
  • Removed
• "..mysterious yet threatening organization known only as NESTS". Yet and only sound superflous.
  • Revised
• " King joins forces with Blue Mary (formerly a member of the "'97 Special Team") to form the new Women Fighters Team with Kasumi Todoh (last seen in KOF '96) and Li Xiangfei (from Real Bout Fatal Fury 2: The Newcomers)". Can you remove the parentheses and rewrite this in a more fluent way?
  • Revised
• "The same issue would happe in the third story arc where Kyo and Iori". Is happe a typo, right? Also, I would add a comma after arc.
  • Revised
• "...regarding Kyo Kusanagi's design was one.." Maybe "as one" is better?
  • Revised
• "Both Uvejuegos stated". Why both?
  • Revised
• " Gaming Age felt the graphic update was more noticeable than the Uvejuegos did but was critical of Krizalid". Can you rewrite this? I can't understand that "than the Uvejuegos did".
  • Done.

@Tintor2: That's all.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC) @TeenAngels1234: Revised everything. Thanks for the review.Tintor2 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Okay, so. The editor briefly fixed all the doubts. Passing.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)