The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 21:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I'll get a review posted within the next few days.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 21:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I did some copyediting on the article as I went through, and there were a lot of things that needed fixing. A lot of sentences flowed in a way that didn't really make sense, there were some grammar issues, there were some duplicate links, and there were a lot of double spaces between words. I also swapped out some of the instances of "stated" with "said", because overusing "stated" can make text stiff. I suggest that you review the changes I made here so you know what to watch out for in the future. It's good to copyedit articles before nominating them, either by doing it yourself or asking someone else to take a look (like at WP:GOCE) if copyediting isn't your thing.
General:
Lead:
programmed by Rob Fulop– Did he create the game too, or was he just the programmer?
he was not properly reimbursed for his work on a port of Space Invaders– The body doesn't say he felt improperly reimbursed for the Space Invaders port, just that he thought he did well with the different projects he worked on.
He said that he expected a strong Christmas bonus from Atari based on how well his games had done commercially. The lead mentions Space Invaders, but the body doesn't. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 19:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Atari had the exclusive rights to produce Phoenix for home consoles– This seems like an out-of-place fact when first reading it. It should start by explaining that Atari felt the ship was reminiscent of one in Phoenix.
Gameplay:
a planetary surface in space– This should be clarified, because these are opposites.
to avoid enemies from the bottom of the screen– The enemies are coming from the bottom of the screen?
to guide the laser after they are shot– Grammar.
Development:
the Atari 2600 permitted smooth and easy movement across the screen horizontally&
as the system allowed for that in an easier way– The article doesn't explain this. Is it because of the software they use?
it was Becker's while the rest was his own– I don't understand what this is saying.
Release:
Reception:
as being different looking and "vibrantly colorful", respectively– Is "different looking" an exact quote? Right now it's strange to have one that's an exact quote and one that's not.
Yarnot noted that– Be careful with "noted". It makes it sound like we're agreeing with them. Better to just use "said" unless they're noting an obvious fact.
with earlier waves then being repeated– I don't understand this.
Legacy:
Spot checks:
No neutrality issues, no disproportionate weight.
No disputes, and the article is not going to become outdated any time soon.
The use of a non-free gif pushes "minimal use" to its limits. I suggest replacing it with a still image of gameplay. The gameplay is already described in the text, and a still image of the player or enemies firing would demonstrate basically every visual aspect.
the rationale for the video must describe why a single image is not sufficient, such as capturing a specific type of motion discussed in depth by sourcesand
limited to less than 10% of the length of the original work or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter. Considering that, I'd say this complies with the non-free use guideline. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 19:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay @ Thebiguglyalien:, I believe I've addressed everything or at least responded. What is the next step? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 21:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I'll get a review posted within the next few days.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 21:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I did some copyediting on the article as I went through, and there were a lot of things that needed fixing. A lot of sentences flowed in a way that didn't really make sense, there were some grammar issues, there were some duplicate links, and there were a lot of double spaces between words. I also swapped out some of the instances of "stated" with "said", because overusing "stated" can make text stiff. I suggest that you review the changes I made here so you know what to watch out for in the future. It's good to copyedit articles before nominating them, either by doing it yourself or asking someone else to take a look (like at WP:GOCE) if copyediting isn't your thing.
General:
Lead:
programmed by Rob Fulop– Did he create the game too, or was he just the programmer?
he was not properly reimbursed for his work on a port of Space Invaders– The body doesn't say he felt improperly reimbursed for the Space Invaders port, just that he thought he did well with the different projects he worked on.
He said that he expected a strong Christmas bonus from Atari based on how well his games had done commercially. The lead mentions Space Invaders, but the body doesn't. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 19:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Atari had the exclusive rights to produce Phoenix for home consoles– This seems like an out-of-place fact when first reading it. It should start by explaining that Atari felt the ship was reminiscent of one in Phoenix.
Gameplay:
a planetary surface in space– This should be clarified, because these are opposites.
to avoid enemies from the bottom of the screen– The enemies are coming from the bottom of the screen?
to guide the laser after they are shot– Grammar.
Development:
the Atari 2600 permitted smooth and easy movement across the screen horizontally&
as the system allowed for that in an easier way– The article doesn't explain this. Is it because of the software they use?
it was Becker's while the rest was his own– I don't understand what this is saying.
Release:
Reception:
as being different looking and "vibrantly colorful", respectively– Is "different looking" an exact quote? Right now it's strange to have one that's an exact quote and one that's not.
Yarnot noted that– Be careful with "noted". It makes it sound like we're agreeing with them. Better to just use "said" unless they're noting an obvious fact.
with earlier waves then being repeated– I don't understand this.
Legacy:
Spot checks:
No neutrality issues, no disproportionate weight.
No disputes, and the article is not going to become outdated any time soon.
The use of a non-free gif pushes "minimal use" to its limits. I suggest replacing it with a still image of gameplay. The gameplay is already described in the text, and a still image of the player or enemies firing would demonstrate basically every visual aspect.
the rationale for the video must describe why a single image is not sufficient, such as capturing a specific type of motion discussed in depth by sourcesand
limited to less than 10% of the length of the original work or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter. Considering that, I'd say this complies with the non-free use guideline. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 19:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay @ Thebiguglyalien:, I believe I've addressed everything or at least responded. What is the next step? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)