Talk:Lemmings (video game)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Should have this one to you by tomorrow at the latest ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 14:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

 * The lead could definitely be expanded at least by another paragraph in order to meet the GA criteria and comply per WP:LEAD. A guideline I live by is that typically the lead should as a "mini article" and have all the main key points in it. At the moment the lead contains almost nothing on its reception (what critics though about it) and the development and plot could be expanded
 * Done. Freikorp (talk)


 * I would mention that the game was ported to a dozen different platforms in the opening, as currently the lead states "and published by Psygnosis for the Amiga in 1991", hinting that from a first glance it sounds like it was only published on the Amiga
 * Specified that it was first published for amiga in 1991. Freikorp (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Lemmings was one of the best-received video games of the early 1990s era" - something from the 'Influence' section could be mentioned here. Did it win any awards?
 * No awards that i'm aware of, though I must admit i'm non familiar with gaming awards from the early 1990s. I added some info regarding the games reception after that sentence, hopefully this improves the lead. Freikorp (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The three bullet points in the Gameplay section do not contain any references
 * Removed. Gameplay is long enough as it is. Freikorp (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph in the Two-player mode is unreferenced
 * Added one reference. Freikorp (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Mike Dailly, the first employee of DMA Design and one of the programmers for Lemmings, has provided a detailed history of the development of Lemmings entitled" - this could be outdated as it doesn't specify when he gave out the history?
 * Specified the year the story was published. Freikorp (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Be careful of WP:OVERLINKING in the Ports and remakes section. Some obvious choices such as mobile phone could be de-linked
 * Removed several wikilinks. Freikorp (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "The game was also ported by Rusty Nutz for play on the PlayStation 2" - does an article exist for this?
 * Found a reference for it. Freikorp (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The flow of the prose in the Reception section is a bit choppy. I would recommend giving the section a minor copyedit - more specifically merging the short paragraphs into larger ones and expanding them if possible. Is the reception section mainly about the original Amiga release or its various ports? Or both?
 * Merged paragraphs and relocated some info to hopefully make this clearer. Freikorp (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would convert the subsections of the Legacy section into small prose, shouldn't be difficult, but most of the mentions of the games are not sourced?
 * I removed a lot of the unsourced stuff, so the sequels read like more of a list. I also removed the sub-headings entirely. Better now? Freikorp (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

On hold
Some issues are standing in the way of this becoming GA, but I believe that they can all be addressed without too much work. My concern here is the lack of prose in the Legacy section and some paragraphs are unreferenced (which is against GA criteria), however most of the concerns were only technical. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days, but please let me know if you have any questions or need any more time. Thanks! ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 17:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * An attempt has been made to address each concern :) Freikorp (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your effort, Feikorp! Looks like we're good to go. ☯  Jag  uar  ☯ 14:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)