Talk:Bit Pilot

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 04:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 20:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• I'll take this one. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks!!! (Great start for February too). Will get to this review soon. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 21:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: I believe I have addressed your concerns. Now to catch up on Squid Game after the nightmare that is high school... TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 00:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead summarizes the article. Layout is reasonable. No WTW issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources are listed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Article is cited to reliable sources about video games.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says 2.0%.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article includes the main information included in sources.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	All statements are relevant to Bit Pilot.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article mentions opinions about the game without giving undue weight to any of them.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable, no reverts.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Article uses two fair use images of the game for valid reasons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Both images clearly represent the game.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good!

Initial comments

• Article is fairly short, but a quick search for sources shows no obvious omissions.
• I'll be doing some minor copyedits myself.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Lead section

• The genres of bullet hell and action are not actually verified in the body.
  • Most video game articles I've seen don't need to verify the game's genres (see Untitled Goose Game, for example).
    • @TrademarkedTWOrantula: Looking at the example you gave, the body actually does verify that it is a stealth game. I think you need a source saying Bit Pilot is a bullet hell game; the AppSpy source could be used for this. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  Added and verified. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 00:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• I think the lead should say "generally favorable reviews", per Metacritic.
  • Mmm... The reception summary is good as is. I feel like quoting Metacritic in the lead would be unnecessary.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Gameplay

• This section looks good.
  • Thanks :P

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Development and release

• The part about collision checking doesn't really say what makes this important—of course the developer of a game is going to optimize its gameplay.
  • Didn't really think it was important anyway. Removed.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Reception

• Most reviewers praised the game as exciting [...] is original research unless a source specifically says "most reviewers".
  • Took out "most".
• I think some of the opinions of reviewers should be attributed. For example, change others commented on its lack of variety. to Pocket Gamer and Wired commented on its lack of variety.
  • Done.
    • @TrademarkedTWOrantula: I think the part that says Although some reviewers thought the swiping mechanic was unique and precise, others criticized how the controls were complicated to learn. needs similar attribution. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  Attributed. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 00:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

• I'll check the 9 most referenced sources. As of this revision: — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

1. Y Y Except technically it doesn't support the phrasing "gradually". Y Y
4. Y Y Y Y N Does not say the controls are unresponsive. Y Y
5. N Does not mention the size increase Y Y Y
6. Y Y Except doesn't say it unlocks new modes. Y Y Y Y Except your phrasing seems to imply the critic says the game has low replay value, while in fact it says the opposite. Y Except the phrasing "unresponsive" doesn't reflect the review's opinion, as it only says it was unresponsive at first. Y
8. Y Y Y
9. Y Y Y Y N Does not say the music/graphics complement the theme.
14. Y Y But with the same caveat about replay value as before Y
15. Y Y Y Y
17. Y Y Y

• A few statements mentioned in multiple sources should maybe be included. Multiple sources compare the game to Asteroids. The two-finger controls seems like an important part of the gameplay, and you should clarify that there are levels instead of just points. Furthermore, I do not think the phrase "mixed opinions" accurately describes what reviews say. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• @TrademarkedTWOrantula: You have not addressed a few of the statements here. I think your use of the phrase "mixed opinions" is original synthesis, so I will require you to remove it before passing this nom. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: Removed. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• 1B: Removed gradually.

  4E: Removed "unresponsive".

  5A: Removed citation.

  6B: Original source says, Bit Pilot contains two levels/modes of game play: Easy, which you begin with and Normal (un-lockable achievement by scoring 3500 points on Easy).

  6F: Umm... tried rephrasing it to "did little to increase".

  @TrademarkedTWOrantula: I would suggest something like Edge and 148apps felt that the gameplay, rather than its rewards for gaining points, gave it replay value. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  Rephrased. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 00:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  6G: Already removed.

  9E: Kept(?) Original source says, Pixelated asteroids flying across the screen boost the game's nostalgic appeal, while its on-pitch bit tunes send it into overdrive.

  14B: See 6F. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.