Talk:Commander Keen in Keen Dreams/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 23:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "known as the "lost episode" of the series" If this is a quote, you should include a reference- even in the lead.
 * Done.


 * "being released and a release" Repetition
 * Changed to 'being published and a release'


 * "a pseudo-3D effect" We have 2.5D and a host of related articles; would a link be appropriate?
 * Linked; I think it's technically an oblique projection but I think the 2.5D article gives better context re: video games


 * I note that some of the gameplay mechanics discussed in the article are not mentioned in the source? Or are you sourcing the videos/screenshots, too?
 * I was; I couldn't find enough sources that talked in enough detail in the text (haven't found the manual yet, just a dead dropbox link). Is there anything in particular that you don't think is covered?


 * "Ideas from the Deep, now founded as id Software, used some of these games to prototype ideas for their own games, such as Catacomb 3-D, and in late spring of 1991 a new Keen game they used to develop new systems for their next set of major episodes of the Commander Keen series." This sentence needs to be rephrased (split?), I think.
 * Split


 * "For Invasion of the Vorticons, John Carmack and Romero focused exclusively on the programming, and Adrian Carmack joined late in development and had a personal art style that did not match with the game, so the game was largely shaped by designer Tom Hall's personal experiences and intere" This needs splitting too
 * Split


 * I'm a little put-out by the lack of a reception section. Indeed, all the sources are incredible recent. On a possibly related note, I'm seeing loads of potentially interesting hits on Google Books.
 * Yeah, they look nice at first... but they aren't. Going down the list of what I see (it's roughly the same as when I wrote the article): ODROID is just a mention that the article author made a quick port for a hobbyist Android platform; "Commander Keen 73 Success Secrets" is a hackwork book by Emereo Publishing, who you might know from their series of 10,000+ books released in the same week consisting of mashed-together Wikipedia articles; Masters of Doom is used already; PC Mag is a 5-word blurb in a catalog of "here's all the software that's purchasable today + the address to mail off to for purchase", repeated for years in their bi-weekly magazine; "Kids' Media Culture" and "From Barbie to Mortal Kombat" are duplicates talking for a paragraph about a fangame design by a little boy that's a fake sequel to Keen Dreams as part of a discussion on how boys and girls design different games; "ZDNet Software Library 10,000" is a 2-paragraph catalog description of the game (but uses the term "lost episode", so I'll add it anyways); "Retrogame Archeology" is just a short jargony discussion of the actual code behind the parallax scrolling as an example of old programming hacks; "Modem Games" is just a short catalog listing; (page 2 now) "Id Software Games" is a mashup of Wikipedia articles; "Net Games" is another catalog listing (1 paragraph this time); "Властелины Doom" is Masters of Doom in Russian; "Personal Computer Magazine" is another short catalog listing (1 sentence, about a compilation release); everything after that is just mis-hits about dreams (though I did go through pages and pages more just in case).
 * I'll put in some more discussion about how there's no reception, but the reason is that there is a real reason it's the "lost episode" - Softdisk did not sell this game in stores. Like their other games, they sold it through mail-order, with descriptions in their magazine. The nascent PC games review community did not pay attention to their games- almost all of them were complete shovelware- and the only reason anyone cares at all is that it's an id game in the Keen series, so it got a little traction in people's minds because it was included in later compilation releases. Games reviews at the time were focused on consoles and to a smaller extent games-focused computer types; they didn't have much to do with PC shovelware games that were knocked out in a couple months for a small Louisiana mail-order publisher. -- Pres N  15:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Made it a bit more explicit about why there's no reception, along with 3 references calling it the "lost episode".

A nice article; my concern is about sourcing on two levels; one, ensuring that the cited sources do support the material you're including, and two, ensuring that there aren't good sources you've missed. I've no doubt I will be promoting soon, but if you could put some checks in in this area, that would be appreciated. (Please double-check my edits.) Josh Milburn (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Non-reviewer comment: I also note that there is no information on reception. I would imagine that sources that are contemporary with the release of this game include reviews. Is broadness of coverage really met with such an omission? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree; I suppose it partially depends on whether (reliable) sources are out there. Could you give us an idea of where you've searched? Alternatively, if you have a source saying that it was little commented-upon or something similar, that would be useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I did a lot of hunting through google books, google regular, and old archives of PC World, PC Magazine, Dragon, and Computer Gaming World, which were the ones that even had mentions of the series at all that I could find; I certainly don't like not having a proper reception section. There's just... nothing there. It's a mail-order release (later "shareware" aka download and mail in money if you keep it lazy publishing) in a series of monthly games from a no-name publisher; the only reason anyone cares about this game is that it's in the cult classic Commander Keen series, which got it no points in the magazines of the time. If Finnusertop knows of anything I missed, I'd love to have it. Anyways, addressed all of your points above. -- Pres  N  16:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied by your effort. Thank you, . Now we can be ascertained that the lack of coverage regarding reception is not the problem of this article, but of sources. I think this article is broad enough in its coverage to satisfy the relevant GACR. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of you, for this. I've noted that you've responded to my comments and will aim to find time for revisit the review soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy enough to promote. The writing's solid, sources and images seem to be fine, and, based on the above, I'm happy that the coverage is suitably comprehensive. I'm not as worried now about the article's claims reflecting source content, but perhaps it's something to be aware of in the future. Anyway, nice work, as ever. Interesting series of articles you have going. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)