Talk:Skeet Shoot/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 21:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have this to you by the weekend czar ♔ 21:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Much of my Talk:Space Cavern/GA1 comments hold here too. I'll repeat myself, where useful, for posterity if not for the sake of the review

Talk:Games by Apollo#Notability of individual games: Before starting the nom, I discussed the independent notability of the short articles on Games with Apollo games that have been coming to GAN in light of sparse sourcing. The discussion was more about other games than Skeet Shoot, though I'd add that I hope there's more to the sourcing used than the single sentence treatment many of the sources received in the Reception. In short, the article's notability is somewhat gray, but I think it's substantial enough to go through with the GAN on good faith, so voilà:
Bears repeating that it would be helpful (at least for me) to have some kind of listing that designates where specific Atari games were reviewed, so as to have a better idea of the volume of sources with which we're working

Gameplay can be clearer, could use copyediting (first sentence has single player, second has "them")

Fixed. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"varieties" needs to be explained

Fixed. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many levels? How do points work? I know it's a simple game, but there should be enough sourcing to go a bit more in depth about how the game functions. Right now, all I've got is that players shoot at things

Well, that's pretty much the game... Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Salvo start programming games? He just started one day?

The interview says he wanted to make some money from an Atari 800 he had bought, and the dealer wanted a flight simulator game for the 2600, so Salvo learned to program so he could get paid. Worth included?

direct quotes need direct citations immediately following the quote's sentence

That'd be ugly so I just removed the quote.

punctuation almost always goes outside the quotation marks on WP (the British, "logical" quotation)
"for the first time out of the box": what does this mean? might be better paraphrased, as many of these quotes

Paraphrased.

I think you'll find grammatical issues in the dev section if you read it out loud. "He" is Roper in one sentence and Salvo in the next. "which Salvo declined believing it to be too risky": no comma pause?]

Fixed. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the glitch significant? Was there anything more said on that?

No. He just made a mistake and fixed it. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would likely make more sense to move the one "release" sentence to dev and then to call the remaining section just "Reception"

Don't know about that. It feels more out of place in the dev section - since release and reception are generally tied together

Several of the longer quotes here need to be paraphrased—the quotes themselves aren't adding uniqueness that paraphrasing wouldn't capture

Paraphrased a couple. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"signed a contract which led to the": which → that unless following a comma or something
too much packed into the bankruptcy sentence—unpack it

I tried... but I can't say I completely understand what you're asking here. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that Aftermath has little to do with Reception, so if necessary to keep at the end like that, I'd make it something like a level 2 header with "Games by Apollo" as its title, since that's how it best fits into the rest of the story

on hold czar ♔ 05:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

czar, ping Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC) You can just respond below the bullets instead of inline, which is messier.[reply]

There's a Release quote missing an immediate cite (WP:MINREF)
"Aftermath" is a non-neutral heading
The player/them is still not fixed
The gameplay basics are still not spelled out (despite the game being simple). How do you score points? When is the game over? etc. basics of gameplay
cover art is attributed to Apollo instead of Games by Apollo
"bug" is jargon, and should be explained. Also if the event was insignificant, I don't think it's worth including in the lede as undue weight.
Since this is as much about Salvo as the game, it would be worth including how he got into this industry—just a sentence would be enough

czar ♔ 17:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I think I got these. One thing I didn't change was Aftermath because it's a pretty widely used header. If you have any suggestions for another header then I'd be glad to change it. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I still think the Gameplay could be more descriptive, even for a simple game, but it meets the minimum GA requirements as is. (Also there's one more instance of "bug" unexplained, when you have a chance.) czar ♔ 01:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]