Talk:Bullfrog Productions/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Doctorg (talk · contribs) 15:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I am now starting this review. Thank you for the time you have put into this article and your work towards expanding Wikipedia’s quality content. I will add my comments into each of the following sections. DoctorG  (talk)  15:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a few minor grammatical issues that need to be cleaned up and, if you can find them, a few images would add a lot to the article. See below for my comments.  DoctorG  (talk)  16:23, 4 September 2017 (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):


 * This is a well written article and some great improvements have been made since becoming B class. Thee following is a list of minor grammar issues that should be addressed:
 * In the founding section, "Taurus would develop business software for the Commodore 64" needs to be reworded to fit the context of the paragraph.
 * In the founding section, "Molyneux received the Amiga systems and began writing a database program called Acquisition." needs to be reworded to fit the context of the paragraph.
 * In the early years section, "Electronic Arts were willing to publish" needs to have the tense changed
 * In the early years section, "McDonald's had wanted to do a joint game venture with Bullfrog" needs to be reworded to fit the context of the paragraph.
 * In the early years section, "so them being copied was not a concern" needs to be reworded
 * In the early years section, "to being a games developer" plurality needs to be fixed
 * Taurus is spelled differently in a few places, double check these for consistency
 * These are all minor and should only take a few minutes to tweak. DoctorG  (talk)  16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Citations and references look great, issues raised during B class review have been addressed. DoctorG  (talk)  16:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Coverage of topic is great DoctorG  (talk)  16:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV is good, there is good representation of multiple views. DoctorG  (talk)  16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wars are happening. DoctorG  (talk)  16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) 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):
 * Are there any screenshots available of some of the games, pictures of game boxes, or something similar? Including a few of these would make the article pop! DoctorG  (talk)  16:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * I'll get to the rest in a bit: I'm currently working on Theme Park World. As a matter of fact, I may even want to add some bits (such as that game's name change being intended to boost Bullfrog in North America) to this article. Plenty, but I'm not sure how to justify using any of them in this article. I don't think they'll meet WP:NFCC, especially criterion 8. Their omission is not detrimental to the understanding of the company who made it. The games themselves, yes, but not the developer. The only thing I can think of is a screenshot of Theme Park with an explanation that Molyneux wanted gay graphics to appeal to the Japanese (that is already in the body), but even that isn't really necessary. Can you think of reasons why including screenshots or box art of Bullfrog games can significantly increase the reader's understanding of the company? Adam9007 (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, just in general, having a few images of the games you are mentining would definitely add to the article. Or images of the people, etc. I didn't look to see if any were available in the Wikipedia Commons, and I know getting other images added can create other issues. I suggest, if there are no images available in Wikipedia Commons, you leave this part alone.  DoctorG  (talk)  13:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a picture of Peter Molyneux on Commons. Would this be suitable? Adam9007 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to include it. DoctorG  (talk)  01:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I will be able to take care of the wording tweaks; please ping me if that's not done by the end of this weekend. I will take a look to see if there are other freely available images regarding other items of relevance, since I would prefer not to use the same image as in our article on the man. Were there other remaining concerns above (I don't think so, but I could be blind). --Izno (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think that will do it.
 * I took a look at rewriting the sections you had mentioned. These are not quality prose now and they frankly need a total rewrite, not the supposed-quibbles you've mentioned. The flow is misery, jumping from topic-to-topic and not offering resolution on many of those topics, and the questionable quality extends outside those sections. At best, the prose is "okay", not "good", and much of the article reflects that. I think this is beyond the amount of effort I'm willing to expend. --Izno (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, I'm available. Adam9007 (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at it, I don't think it is quite as bad as you do, but I'm sure whoever has interest can get it cleaned up. DoctorG  (talk)  22:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for circling back. let me know when you are ready for me to take another look. DoctorG  (talk)  22:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm failing this one because there hasn'r been any real movement to update it in the past few weeks. Feel free to requbmit when you have time to get it cleaned up. DoctorG  (talk)  15:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)