Talk:NHL 96
 | NHL 96 has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 20, 2019. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from NHL 96 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 March 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Minor change[edit]
I removed the mention of the PlayStation and Saturn versions as they were consoles that only got NHL Powerplay '96 which is a game made by Virgin Interactive Salavat (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Interesting... Artifact?[edit]
A message was left in the SNES version of the ROM directed at ROM hackers, offering potential jobs. Spinout182 (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
External links modified (February 2018)[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on NHL 96. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140421082352/http://crashthenet.ca/community/index.php?%2Fgallery%2Fimage%2F1553-nhl-96%2F to http://crashthenet.ca/community/index.php?%2Fgallery%2Fimage%2F1553-nhl-96%2F
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:NHL 96/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) 13:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I will give this one a look. Please note that while I am knowledgable on video games, I have zero to no knowledge about ice hockey as a sport. So I trust the nominator or other willing editors to help me out on questions related to the sport.
1. Is it well-written?[edit]
There is no need for the brackets in the gameplay section ("goalie" etc.), as everything explained in the brackets could be done in better style by simply linking the discussed topic, while most of it is self-explainatory anyways ("goalie"). Everything put in brackets has a Wikipedia article, yet almost none of it is linked. In general, the section should link all ice hockey related vocabulary to its related article.
Also, the gameplay section seems excessively detailed, especially the second paragraph. I am no expert on the sport of ice hockey, but it seems to me that the editor tried to explain actual ejection/penalty rules in great detail, whoever, this can be done in more brief fashion. In the first paragraph, I also have a feeling that it is a bit overly detailed as far as manoveurs are concerned. It is a hockey game, so the idea that you can pass/shoot is pretty much self-explainatory and mustn't be discussed in great detail.
I fail to comprehend how there can be 1.6 fights per game. Does that mean the second fight is aborted?
I would also lose the bracket (and effectively best hockey game of 1995, since the first-place winner was a football game), since the award does not specifically state that.
2. Is it verifiable with no original research?[edit]
Yes. Almost all sources consist of magazines and the game's manuals etc. However, with articles for games of that age that is not unusual. The article sources suficiently and aside from the (and effectively best hockey game of 1995, since the first-place winner was a football game) I cannot see original research here.
3. Is it broad in its coverage?[edit]
As I have detailed above, the gameplay section is too detailed in some regards.
What I miss in the article is information on sales. As the editor apparently has access to a great amount of contemporary magazines, would it be possible to attain information on units sold? If so, it should definetely be included.
4. Is it neutral?[edit]
Yes.
5. Is it stable?[edit]
Yes. Absolutely nothing is going to change here.
6. Is it illustrated?[edit]
Yes, sufficiently.
Conclusion[edit]
If the problems I see in the gameplay section are adressed, I see no reason why this article should not pass. I would do so myself, but as I said, I am no expert on the sport of ice hockey, so I would rather have somebody else do it. Also, please include sales if availiabe.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm really not a sports person either, so I suppose I overcompensated by going for what seemed to make sense for an article and writing for the benefit of readers who were just as clueless about hockey as I am. Plus, I figured at this point that detailing what commands the player is capable of was par for the course for video game articles in general. At the very least, the bracket issue has been taken care of and the detailing on penalties has been reduced and merged with the paragraph on fighting.
- "1.6" was just the number given in the source, but if "one or two" makes more sense, I'm willing to make that amendment.
- Unfortunately, my searches couldn't readily turn up anything in regards to precise sales figures. However, I do recall maybe one or two of those magazines featuring something resembling a sales/rentals chart, so if those are the closest thing that can be scrounged up, I could see about working something in. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- hey there, thanks for working in the changes so quickly. As soon as you give me an update on whether you dug up some sales numbers, I‘ll pass the article.DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say that my latest search also came up dry. That "Blockbuster Hot Sheet" thing from GamePro was the best I could manage. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, we did what we could. I will update the article‘s status now.-DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say that my latest search also came up dry. That "Blockbuster Hot Sheet" thing from GamePro was the best I could manage. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- hey there, thanks for working in the changes so quickly. As soon as you give me an update on whether you dug up some sales numbers, I‘ll pass the article.DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, my searches couldn't readily turn up anything in regards to precise sales figures. However, I do recall maybe one or two of those magazines featuring something resembling a sales/rentals chart, so if those are the closest thing that can be scrounged up, I could see about working something in. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)