Talk:Worms 2/GA1
Latest comment: 4 years ago by FreeMediaKid! in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 18:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
In progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Overall, the article is in good shape. Comments as follows:
- Prose:
- and because of memory limits had limited the game's release to only Windows the use of had here confuses me with the tense. If the idea was it could only be released on Windows initially, then you should say so. Otherwise this makes it sound like they changed their minds.
- While British English does use the auxiliary verb have more frequently than American English, I should remind myself that it is still grammatical to use the simple past, particularly when referring to events in the specified past, as opposed to the recent. You are right that the had is weird and unnecessary. FreeMediaKid!
- The final paragraph of development is kind of all over the place thematically. It's got release info, it mentions the music, it mentions parallax scrolling, which feels like it should be in the previous paragraph.
- It's never been rereleased on any other platforms?
- To the best of my knowledge, that is correct. FreeMediaKid!
- and because of memory limits had limited the game's release to only Windows the use of had here confuses me with the tense. If the idea was it could only be released on Windows initially, then you should say so. Otherwise this makes it sound like they changed their minds.
- References:
- I don't think you should have a link to the soundtrack in the references section if it's not being used as one. It should be an external link.
- It's cool to see a bunch of non-English sources being used, but can you explain what makes Gambler, PC Top Player, and Joker reliable sources?
- There have not been as many English sources about Worms 2 as I would have liked to see, and I figured that the foreign-language ones contained information not found in the English sources, which turned out to be about a quarter or fifth of the body of the article. What was not cool, though, was translating the sources' contents. It was often my copying the PDF text, pasting it into a machine translator, and reformatting the sentences to prevent the translator from confusing them as if they were separate paragraphs. Less often, but much more annoyingly, there were photographs of text for which no PDF text existed and thus could be copied, or parts of the text that could be copied were broken and so after being pasted, it had to be fixed using the intended characters. As if grinding the Internet for sources were not bad enough, I think it took somewhere in the weeks to translate them, and it really stank.
Anyway, according to the Polish Wikipedia, Gambler was run by editors of Top Secret, an established reliable source. PC Top Player was famous enough to be referenced by the Autonomous University of Barcelona, and its publisher, Tower Communications, was prominent in the computer technology sector. PC Joker was the oldest German magazine devoted to DOS games published by Joker Verlag, the same publishing house behind Amiga Joker, and when it ceased publication, it seems to have been bought out by GameStar. GameStar itself, along with 4Players, has had editors from the PC Joker magazine. FreeMediaKid!
- There have not been as many English sources about Worms 2 as I would have liked to see, and I figured that the foreign-language ones contained information not found in the English sources, which turned out to be about a quarter or fifth of the body of the article. What was not cool, though, was translating the sources' contents. It was often my copying the PDF text, pasting it into a machine translator, and reformatting the sentences to prevent the translator from confusing them as if they were separate paragraphs. Less often, but much more annoyingly, there were photographs of text for which no PDF text existed and thus could be copied, or parts of the text that could be copied were broken and so after being pasted, it had to be fixed using the intended characters. As if grinding the Internet for sources were not bad enough, I think it took somewhere in the weeks to translate them, and it really stank.
- Spot-check of statements attributed to current refs 1, 3, 7, 15, 18, 25, 26, 49, and 52 didn't demonstrate verifiability or close paraphrasing/plagiarism issues.
- For my own reference, I will have to refer to this revision because the reference numbers have changed since I started editing the article as suggested. UPDATE: I have addressed references 1, 3, 7, 15, 18, 49, and 52; 25 and 26 are discussed in my question at the bottom of this page. FreeMediaKid!
- Media:
- It seems weird to use a screenshot from a different game (File:Worms World Party screenshot.png). Even if the graphics are substantially similar, why not use the actual game?
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Question: David Fuchs, this article is almost ready to be promoted. I do have a question about sources 25 and 26 (now 28 and 29). It is that I cannot seem to find anything wrong with the article's contents citing those sources. I checked these sources myself, and I genuinely cannot figure out what the problems are. Are they problems with close paraphrasing? That is what I would think, as I have not been able to find problems with failed verification. However, having compared the sources with the article's contents, I am not sure which parts would be too close to plagiarism. Can you clarify what the problems are with statements attributed to references 28 and 29? FreeMediaKid! 10:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think you misread my comment above. I did a spot-check to check for issues and didn't find any issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- This would mean that the article has been ready to be promoted for days. As a matter of fact, I did misread your comment. I thought it said that the references did not demonstrate "verifiability", as opposed to "verifiability issues". I then took it to mean that there were some issues with close paraphrasing. In this case, the paraphrased contents were paraphrased further, and the references that adequately verified them were made even more precise. The only thing that was deleted from the article was the mention of an indestructible ceiling for cavern levels, as "indestructible ceiling" did not appear in the cited source or the manual. However, the ceiling is there for those levels, and it is already implied that there may be one. I guess this article is done, and the only question I have is whether I should add the indestructible ceiling claim back in. FreeMediaKid! 22:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you don't have a source for it, no, it shouldn't be in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think this article is done. There is not much left to improve, and all of the issues you have raised are fixed. FreeMediaKid! 20:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- I will take a last look today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just so you know, one edit has been made since that comment. FreeMediaKid! 01:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I will take a last look today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think this article is done. There is not much left to improve, and all of the issues you have raised are fixed. FreeMediaKid! 20:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you don't have a source for it, no, it shouldn't be in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- This would mean that the article has been ready to be promoted for days. As a matter of fact, I did misread your comment. I thought it said that the references did not demonstrate "verifiability", as opposed to "verifiability issues". I then took it to mean that there were some issues with close paraphrasing. In this case, the paraphrased contents were paraphrased further, and the references that adequately verified them were made even more precise. The only thing that was deleted from the article was the mention of an indestructible ceiling for cavern levels, as "indestructible ceiling" did not appear in the cited source or the manual. However, the ceiling is there for those levels, and it is already implied that there may be one. I guess this article is done, and the only question I have is whether I should add the indestructible ceiling claim back in. FreeMediaKid! 22:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think you misread my comment above. I did a spot-check to check for issues and didn't find any issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
