Talk:Portal Revolution

Portal Revolution 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: September 6, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Portal Revolution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "Portal Revolution" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: 1

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (5 participants)
Purple Francis (8 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (10 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants; relisted)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Portal Revolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 17:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 20:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for an another review! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I've noticed that there are two different names used: "Portal: Revolution" and "Portal Revolution". This should be adjusted to favor one or the other (depending on which is official)
The official name is Portal: Revolution.
Stefan Heinz should be mentioned in the infobox
Done

Lead

"Development of the mod began in 2016; the mod uses a custom version of the Source engine that introduces features that are "impossible in Portal 2"" It may be worth mentioning that the claim is attributed to the creators of the mod

Done

Gameplay

"The game's difficulty increases progressively. It can be completed in approximately 8 hours, and features custom voice acting." I feel as though "It can be completed in approximately 8 hours" would work better as part of one sentence with the sentence about the game's difficulty. As for voice acting, I think it should be removed here, and perhaps mention it in conjunction with the discussion of voice actors being used in the development and release section.
Done

Development and release

"He initially got the impression from them that the release date would be viable, but after submitting the game for release, he had failed to get a response as the deadline approached." This feels a little redundant. Consider incorporating it in a different way, such as (as an example) "Heinz stated at the time that "the game is done", but Valve's review was prolonged due to reduced staffing during the holiday period, resulting in Heinz failing to receive a response as the deadline approached."
Done
"alongside a decorative DLC designed to support the developers." I assume this is paid DLC? It may be worthwhile to clarify that.
Done

Reception

"Park said that this restriction makes the puzzles "simpler...in some ways"." I feel like the quotation reads a little awkwardly. Could it be tweaked or paraphrased to rectify this?
Done

References

Is Boiling Steam a reliable source?
They are not listed at VG/S but their content has been featured in multiple reliable sources. I can remove them if you want.
Is it possible to replace it for a citation from one of the pages listed?
No, they're the only one to mention turrets and light bridges. I've removed it.

Spotcheck'

[1] "The player is equipped with the portal gun that can create two ends of a portal, coloured orange and blue, and can be used to interact with other mechanics of the Portal such as cubes." Forgive me, but my tired eyes can't see what in this sentence this source is used to cite. I'm not sure if there's something it's meant to cite or if it's just not needed for this sentence. No issues otherwise.
The source is used to cite the fact that the player has a portal gun and that they can interact with cubes for example. The reference next to it only confirms that the portals are coloured orange and blue.
[2] Is fine
[3] Is fine
[4] Is fine

My B, this slipped my mind. Passed - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]