Talk:Jungle Strike/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 01:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, well done. Placing on hold for one week in order to address minor issues. Freikorp (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Lead
SNES is linked in the second sentence, then 'Super Nintendo Entertainment System', which links to the same page, is linked in the third sentence.
Wow, I can't believe that SNES is linked three times in the lead! And I wasn't even drunk when I wrote that this time! Anyway, fixed, I also linked as 'Super Nintendo Entertainment System' in the first instance and abbreviated it for later reference ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"with some reviewers awarding scores upwards of 90%" doesn't strike me as neutral, I mean, one reviewer gave less than 80%, but that isn't mentioned. Suggest rewording.
You're right, it seems a bit hyped. Reworded to "The game was well received by most critics upon release" in the lead, and also reworded the first line in the reception section to "some reviewers regarding it with critical acclaim". I could always reword it again if you want me to, but I thought with two reviewers giving it 95%+ it usually means critical acclaim, but then again, it was only two reviewers ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay
Suggest wikilinking 'Hydra rockets' and 'Hellfire missiles'
Never thought of that, neat! Done ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reception
"The second reviewer", can you clarify that he is also from Sega Force in that sentence or the one preceding it? I.e "Adrian Pitt and Mat Yeo of Sega Force both reviewed the game. Adrian Pitt stated...". I had to do a double take and try and figure out what was going on, I got the initial impression you were trying to either say he was the second reviewer in your chosen list of reviewers or the second person to ever review the game (chronologically).
Upon reading it again it does sound confusing and I know what you mean, so I reworded the opening to what you suggested and also done a minor copyedit of that paragraph. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The New Straits Times praised the" Please attribute review to author as well as publication. Same for Amiga Computing, Amiga Format, Amiga Power, CU Amiga Magazine and The One Amiga. Accordingly, when mentioning the source for the second time, then refer to the author's surname, rather than the publication. Similarly please state where "Chip and Jonathan Carter" are writing in. Does the Amiga CD32 Gamer article have an attributed author
Added all their full names/surnames to make it clearer; I always do this in articles but some of the reception section remains that from what is was in 2011/12 before I picked it up last year! A thing that bothers me though is "Lim Choon Klet of the New Straits Times", as that is a hell of a name, so I didn't know if 'Choon Klet' was the whole surname, so it does sound odd in the article. I assume that "Chip and Jonathan" are related as they share the same surname, but their part of the review in the article attributes to them both writing it as it contains "the duo said". If you want I could cut one of the names if it makes it clearer, but the authors are 'Chip and Jonathan Carter' for some reason. As with Amiga CD32 Gamer, unfortunately the ref doesn't give us a link and I don't have the actual 1992 copy, but I suppose I could see if Thibbs would have put anything up on one of the old magazine pages that are on the VG project subpages. I'm afraid it's the same with all of the other magazines too, as they do not appear to be archived on the internet. However I don't like leaving this alone, so I'll let you know what I can find archived on both Wikipedia and some other sites on the web (some Amiga magazines are archived here). If magazines/websites don't have specified reviewer names then I would leave it blank if all else fails, as with Jumping Flash!, where I wrote "IGN staff". ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Replace the instance of "noted" and "claimed" with neutral terms, such as "stated", "described" or "commented"
Done ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
I know it's kind of obvious, but refs one, two and three need to specify they are quotes from the game, and one and two also need to indicate who is making the quote
Done, I used special cite templates ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 28 is not consistent with rest of reference formatting, as it provides an external link at the end of the citation rather than linking the article's title.
Well spotted, I converted this to a proper web cite journal format. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a page number and a title for the "Future Publishing" reference. I assume the review was not titled "review", same problem with the "MegaTech" source
This is by far more trouble than it's worth, ~~so I removed the 'reference' entirely and added a new one in.~~ I think somebody added that citation in years ago, hence why it's not even formatted! Things change over time it seems ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I had done a search through the VG reliable sources engine (I couldn't give a link as it is on the 'blacklist') for anything on a Mega review on the game, and found nothing, which is disappointing, so I've removed Mega's entry from the table entirely, as nothing covers it and it would derail this GAN. Big shame ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just confirming - are you going to do anything with the 'MegaTech' source? "MegaTech, issue 18" isn't enough information, or at the very least is not ideal. Freikorp (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it entirely as I could not find anything at all on 'MegaTech', not even a standard Google search picked up any archive of some kind ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like most of your online sources need updating/archiving: [1]
Oh dear. Out of all of those links only one, ref 21, could be salvaged through the Wayback Machine. I have restored the archive url into a real format, but with the others I'm really not sure on what to do as they come with 404 errors. Should I get rid of all of the broken links until they can be found through other means? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just managed to salvage ref 22. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think i've found one of your dead links at the wayback site: [2] Freikorp (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another: [3] Freikorp (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here's one of the last three: [4]. I can't find any online reference to the "The Dossier on Military Games" source though, but fortunately as it is a newspaper and it provides a page number I'm sure you can just remove the URL and use it as an offline source. It appears the url was just linking to the online version of the newspaper article. The Jeff Gerstmann Saturn review was unfortunately never archived, so i'm afraid you're going to have to lose that one. Freikorp (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! I had no idea why nothing was showing up for me when I tried to retrieve them through web archive. Only two worked for me. Anyway, I have replaced all dead links above, and as with "The Dossier on Military Games", I deleted the url. The pages should suffice ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: I may be wrong, but the issue may have been you didn't truncate the URL. One of the URLs in the article was http://www.gamespot.com/ps/action/nuclearstrike/review.html/?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Bread-review, which isn't archived at wayback, but by shortening the URL to http://www.gamespot.com/ps/action/nuclearstrike/review.html we get several archived versions. Freikorp (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

@Freikorp: thanks for the review again! I have addressed everything above, however the only thing left I could not address were a couple of dead links that cannot be recovered. I only managed to salvage ref 21 and 22 through the Wayback Machine but all other links could not be archived for some reason - I am still going to find some offline sources and also see if I can find any print sources that would suffice. This is a nice article and it would be a shame miss out on any information. As I said above I could remove the dead links entirely before this GAN closes while I look for more content? Anyway thanks for your comments ☯ Jaguar ☯ 00:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Thanks for addressing these concerns. Just two issues remaining which I have commented on above. Freikorp (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: I think I have all of it now, as I said above all links have been replaced with the archive versions and the final url was deleted as I couldn't find anything. As with MegaTech, I had to remove it along with its score in the box, shouldn't hurt. Let me know what you think? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, i'm passing this now. Freikorp (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]