Talk:British Open Championship Golf/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Bridies (talk · contribs) 16:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Review to follow shortly. bridies (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Prose and layout

  • Prose is good and comfortably meets the criteria. I did wonder whether it was necessary to describe the game of golf: you might want to consider ditching “a sport in which players attempt to hit a ball into a hole with as few strokes as possible” and just linking golf. Maybe.
  • There were two reasons behind this decision: first, because I try to break a game down to its most basic core in the first sentence of Gameplay (see Flight Unlimited#Gameplay as another example); second, because I was copying the only other golf game GA, Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour. If you still think it should be removed, I'll take it out. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right, let's leave it. I was really just casting about for a useful suggestion for the prose... bridies (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of minor concerns with the ref section:
    • I'm not sure that GameSpot and GameSpy should be italicized.
    • I'm also wondering why the publisher in reference 18 is given as Game Developer rather than GamaSutra. I understand that the former is owned by the latter but can’t see Game Developer mentioned on the page.
  • It's technically a postmortem that was reposted online after being featured in Game Developer, but I see your point. Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same GameSpot review seems to be linked in both the notes and external links section and I think could be safely removed from the latter.

Accuracy/Sourcing

  • Everything is attributed to a source. I sampled some of the direct quotes and the claim regarding the unique use of the St. Andrews course and they check out.
  • My only concern is the claim that "it was generally well received by critics", attributed to a single article, is pushing WP:WEASEL. The article seems to be written by someone from the company which might also raise neutrality concerns.
  • Hmmm. This is problematic, because there are no other sources for that (demonstrably true) sentence. As a defense for the neutrality of that source, I can say that Chey didn't work at Looking Glass when he wrote the article. He did work on BOCG as a programmer, though. Your call. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of a direct attribution as with the other material in the reception section, which would nail it down as a writer's recollection. But yeah, it's borderline and doesn't go against the other content in that section. bridies (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

  • Has all the standard video game sections (I think it's a safe assumption an golf game doesn't need a plot section...) and information well-covered.
  • It would be nice if more weight was given to the game's commercial failure, perhaps some commentary or speculation on why it was so badly received commercially. That said, I realise such commentary may simply not exist for an old golf game...
  • I too would love to have this information, but sadly I don't believe that any citable material regarding it exists. I added a tiny bit more on the company's actions after its release, but I can't link them too directly to this game alone--most sources state that BOCG was only one element of the LGS financial crisis during this period. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think we can fairly say the article reflects the research. bridies (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

  • No reverts in the last page of history.

Images

  • Standard video game images with acceptable FURs. Also nice use of a free image.

Overall:

*On hold for now bridies (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. bridies (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]