Talk:Underwurlde/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rhain (talk · contribs) 11:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• "ported the game to the Commodore 64 the next year"—would "the following year" work better? I'm fine with either.
• "appreciated the parts where..."—I find that words like "segments", "sections" or "sequences" would fit better here than "parts", but it works fine too.

"Sequences" actually has some kind of film studies connotation, so I try to avoid it

• In the first paragraph of Gameplay, there are three consecutive sentences that begin with "The player..." (the last of which has another "the player" about halfway through)—consider revising at least one.
• "on their own" (Gameplay, paragraph 2)—would "independently" work better?

I was thinking maybe "without guidance" but I think "on their own" is the most elegant—shortest, fewest syllables

• The final sentence of Gameplay feels odd by itself—such similarities are interesting to note, but what about the differences? Any worth mentioning?

Nothing that the reviewers called out—all of that went in the Reception. I was thinking mainly of how the NES port of Knight Lore was nothing like the other versions. Underwurlde didn't have quite as many ports, but it's useful to know whether the gameplay was similar before getting to the Reception.

• Development section is disappointingly short, but you've done a great job with the very limited information available. Nice work.
• I feel as though a semicolon would work well between the first and second sentences of Development. Feel free to leave it be, though; I'm known for my over-usage of semicolons.

Not sure if I've linked this before, but semicolons remind me of Kurt Vonnegut

• Link Crash in the first paragraph of Reception, and Zzap!64 in the third paragraph.
• "as not one of the Commodore 64's best adventures" seems very out of place to me with the rest of the sentence. Perhaps I'm simply reading it wrong.
• The first sentence of Legacy reads awkwardly to me—perhaps something like "... declaring it" would work before "the most simultaneously loved and hated game of its era". Again, perhaps I'm simply reading it wrong.
• References look great—I love the slick Notes section, for ease of access. I might steal this in the future.

Works best when referencing print mags, so you don't have to repeat the citation for different page ranges. One of the benefits of working with mostly print (and not web) material is doing a nice, clean notes section, though

I don't think it needs saying, but this is a great article. Most of my notes above are just my personal thoughts in an attempt to nitpick as much as possible into a fantastic article; feel free to ignore any comment if you disagree. Safe to say that the article is very close to having that green plus, once the few issues are addressed. Thanks!

Appreciate the review, @Rhain! I think I got it all czar 17:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes! I'm happy to give you your penultimate for your monumental Rare Replay topic. I was planning on reviewing the final, but it looks like I was beaten (I might take a look at the FAC instead). Best of luck! In the home stretch now. – Rhain ☔ 00:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You can always do both 😜 (GANs are technically open to all comments, though the single reviewer is the one who issues the final verdict.) And yes, almost there... Looking forward to putting a bow on this one czar 19:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)