Talk:Theme Hospital/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

A classic! Happy to take a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Do "A patch was released that added multiplayer support with up to four players." and especially "Many ideas were considered, but not implemented due to time constraints." belong in the lead?
 * The multilayer and the scrapped ideas are important, no? Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My thought is that many games will have patches, and virtually any game will have a lot of ideas bounced around early in the design process. If you're attached to the information about the patch remaining, I can let that drop, but something's going to have to be done about the other line. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I moved the bit about the patch to after the bit about ideas being dropped. Makes more sense for it to be there. I've also changed "considered" to "intended". Adam9007 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You should really mention the format of the game in the first sentence; it was originally a PC game?
 * I am not sure that you approach the gameplay section in the best way. I feel like you should begin by talking about the basic gameplay before describing details of the campaign mode. Perhaps you could open by saying that the player builds rooms, decorates rooms and corridors, hires staff and researches rooms/diseases/whatever; that gives some context for the reader when you go on to explain other aspects.
 * Similarly, I think you need to explain that there are different kinds of rooms which do different things before talking about building them; an early mention that the game is a top-down view of an initially empty hospital space would be good!
 * "Patients see a GP in his office, and if he cannot make a diagnosis," Are all GPs male? If not, could we switch to gender-neutral language?
 * Only doctors can act as GPs, and all doctors are male. Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe the stuff about the GP can be shifted up in the gameplay section, too?
 * "and he, along with artist Gary Carr" Who's the he, here?
 * "It was decided the graphics should be like those of cartoons, and the game also deviated from the NHS model" What do these have to do with each other?
 * What is a "sprite drawer"?
 * I'm not sure how I can explain what a sprite drawer is, so simply linked sprite. Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really solve the problem, though; while "sprite" is now defined, we're still none-the-wiser as to what a "sprite drawer" is. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sprite-drawing program is the best I could come up with. Adam9007 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Many game ideas, such as decision-making, and the complex diagnosis procedure were implemented, but despite this, there were not many meetings, and Webley took the team to the pub weekly with a list of things to be done. Webley explained that the way the team worked gave members ownership of their parts, as they wouldn't have got done if they didn't do them. The disease called King Complex was to be called Elvis Impersonator, but Elvis's estate owned the rights Bloaty Head was based on an allergic reaction Molyneux had, when his face became an "alarming size"." This is very difficult to follow; it is an example of weak prose.
 * "great game" is a little colloquial to say in Wikipedia's voice; could you quote the specific word he used?
 * Could you give the date of the original PS1 release in the port/rerelease section?
 * Has it ever appeared on Steam? Also, why do you list the open source remakes separately from the other releases? And you have a mention of a rerelease in the lead not mentioned in the rerelease section. Also, wasn't this rereleased through Sold Out Software? Does that deserve a mention?
 * The budget releases are difficult if not impossible to source, so the only place they can go is the lead. I have no idea about Steam. Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * References are not necessary in leads (for non-controversial information) precisely because it is assumed that all information is going to be sourced in the main body of the article. Leads can't be used to bury uncited information- that's exactly the opposite of what they're for! Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In which case, I've deleted that info. Adam9007 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "73 per cent on GameRankings based on two reviews" Is that worth quoting?
 * You'd have to ask FosterHaven, as he put it in. Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to chime in if you like! Adam: I'm reviewing the article as I find it; it doesn't really matter at this stage who added what. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was going to include Metacritic, but they don't list any publications at all, contrary to what Adam has found. I stated in my edit's summary, "If GameRankings has too little of a review count to be included, it's okay to remove it." For GA status, it probably wouldn't help its case, and I definitely wouldn't argue in favour of keeping it. FosterHaven (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Critics noted the strong gameplay, detailed graphics, satisfying comedic tone, and a great voice acting performance, but fell conflicted on music, repetition, the game's artificial intelligence, and the user interface." Source? Also, "great"?
 * It was intended to summarise the various points that publications covered; for each one, the paragraph below provides the adequate explanation. As stated above, this is modelled from other articles. If it leans too much on informality, I take responsibility for that. FosterHaven (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is Coming Soon Magazine reliable? Surely there are better sources for a game this significant. If you are using it, should it be italicised?
 * I've had other articles citing Coming Soon Magazine promoted to GA, so I guess it's reliable. It appears to be an online source, so I don't know if it should be italicised. Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that really answers the question, though. Looking through the website, it seems to have gotten some recognition, so even if it's way out of date now, it may not be too bad. I'd go with italicising on the basis that they seem to release by issue, so it's an online magazine rather than an ezine. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why you choose to attribute opinions to publications rather than critics writing for those publications? This strikes me as journalese.
 * You think I should put the reviewers names in the reviews? Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So "John Smith, who reviewed the game for Magazine, felt that the" rather than "Magazine felt that the". Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I put the names I could find. Adam9007 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The reception section is a little "Reviewer 1 said abc, reviewer 2 said def, reviewer 3..."- have a think about organising it thematically.
 * Hmm.. That may mess up the current organisation by platforms. Adam9007 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is Jeuxvideo.com reliable?
 * Jeuxvideo.com is reliable according to WikiProject_Video_games/Sources. Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, no objection, then. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "a fresh attempt at cloning the game" Informal
 * "In February 2013, OpenTH developers addressed the state of the project,[52] as another named CorsixTH forked from OpenTH that launched in July 2009 under the MIT License." This is not easy to follow.
 * In fact, the whole section on the open source remakes seems to be sourced to blogs and the like. Do you have any reliable sources discussing it? If not, it should probably all go; there are lots of teams making lots of software, but it doesn't all need to be on Wikipedia.
 * I think I've found some reliable sources (they need to be checked) on CorsixTH, and got rid of the info about OpenTH as it's extremely difficult if not impossible to reliably source. Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm yet to look in detail at the article's sources, but I am not sure it is where it needs to be for GA status at this time. I'm happy to leave this review open to give you/others a chance to respond. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The multilayer and the scrapped ideas are important, no? Only doctors can act as GPs, and all doctors are male. I'm not sure how I can explain what a sprite drawer is, so simply linked sprite. The budget releases are difficult if not impossible to source, so the only place they can go is the lead. I have no idea about Steam. As for GameRankings, you'd have to ask, as he put it in. I don't know if it's relevant or not. I've had other articles citing Coming Soon Magazine promoted to GA, so I guess it's reliable. It appears to be an online source, so I don't know if it should be italicised. You think I should put the reviewers names in the reviews? Jeuxvideo.com is reliable according to WikiProject_Video_games/Sources. I think I've found some reliable sources (they need to be checked) on CorsixTH, and got rid of the info about OpenTH as it's extremely difficult if not impossible to reliably source. EDIT: I've put the comments above per below. Adam9007 (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply; I don't have time to look into this in detail right now, but feel free to reply to the points in question above so we can keep track of what has/has not been changed and where we may have disagreements about the approach. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:11, 17 Octodesiber 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved the comments above. Adam9007 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologise for not returning sooner, but before Adam arrived, I copy-edited a good portion of the article (history can verify that), and kept it on my watchlist since. Thank you for reviewing the article regardless; it may not be ready now, but your input helps us for later. FosterHaven (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Second read through
Based on the discussion above and the remaining problems with the article, I'm going to close the review at this time. I do, however, note the following for consideration going forward; hopefully this will be ready for renomination in the coming months.
 * "The game is the thematic successor to Theme Park, also produced by Bullfrog, and the second instalment in their Theme series, and part of their Designer Series." and... and.... Also, the Designer Series is mentioned nowhere else in the article.
 * "Many ideas were intended, but not implemented due to time constraint" Again- this is exceedingly vague, and doesn't really tell us anything of note. All projects, whether video games, books, albums, websites... go through this kind of design phase.
 * The gameplay section still feels very out-of-order. It seems like just about everything's there, it just needs to be smoothed out. For example, why are you telling us that "The player is given time to build the hospital at the start of each level before patients start coming" in paragraph 5/6?
 * Same with the development section. There seems to be little discernible order to the prose.
 * "Webley explained that the way the team worked gave members ownership of their development areas, as only they would perform their assigned duties otherwise they would not get done" This is not good writing
 * "In 1998, a PlayStation port of Theme Hospital was developed by Krisalis Software.[" Presumably it was released then? The current text suggests it was developed in 1998 but not released until 2008.
 * "A Sega Saturn version (titled Sim Hospital as of October 1995) was in development and due for release in mid-1996.[36]" This was cancelled? Also, what about the Sold Out version?
 * "An open-source remake, CorsixTH, enhances the game" enhances isn't very neutral.
 * "eulogised the humour" eulogised?!
 * Are you italicising "Absolute Playstation" or not?

Hope this is useful. Good luck going forward. 16:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting this here as I'm not sure I should edit the GA review page now it's been formally closed.


 * ""The game is the thematic successor to Theme Park, also produced by Bullfrog, and the second instalment in their Theme series, and part of their Designer Series." and... and.... Also, the Designer Series is mentioned nowhere else in the article."
 * You think the Designer series is not worth mentioning then? There's not much that I can find out there after all. The only info I have about it is that the games use Theme Park's simulation engine and were supposed to have 3 simulation levels (this reminds me: I should probably put this in Theme Park (video game)).
 * I'm just saying that it should be included, with a source and preferably a description/wikilink, in the main body of the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ""Many ideas were intended, but not implemented due to time constraint" Again- this is exceedingly vague, and doesn't really tell us anything of note. All projects, whether video games, books, albums, websites... go through this kind of design phase."
 * The 4 time zones is a pretty major feature that didn't make it. How else should I have summarised it?
 * You could just say something like "Designers originally planned to include four distinct gameplay modes corresponding to four historical time periods, but this feature was dropped due to time pressures on the team." Josh Milburn (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Same with the development section. There seems to be little discernible order to the prose."
 * "The gameplay section still feels very out-of-order. It seems like just about everything's there, it just needs to be smoothed out. For example, why are you telling us that "The player is given time to build the hospital at the start of each level before patients start coming" in paragraph 5/6?
 * I think I wrote the development section info in pretty much the same order the source gives it, though I may need to double check it.
 * Ok, but there's no reason to assume that the sources approached it in the most logical order, especially if they are works of a very different genre to a Wikipedia article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ""A Sega Saturn version (titled Sim Hospital as of October 1995) was in development and due for release in mid-1996.[36]" This was cancelled? Also, what about the Sold Out version?"
 * Yes, as there's no Saturn version. I have no idea about the Sold-Out version, but it can't be that important or there'd be something good about it out there.


 * ""eulogised the humour" eulogised?!"
 * What's wrong with it? Have I totally misunderstood its meaning?
 * It's a little hyperbolic. Is it seriously a word you'd use? It smacks of "plucked out of a thesaurus" to me. "praised", "commended", "complimented" or perhaps "lauded" could work.


 * "Are you italicising "Absolute Playstation" or not?"
 * It's a web source isn't it?
 * Ok- I've no strong opinion either way, but there's some inconsistency in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007 (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't see any harm in editing the GA page, but I'll reply to you here anyway! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed most of these issues. Have I missed anything? How soon can this be ready for renomination? Should I move this to the GA review page? Adam9007 (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry about the delay; I saw this comment when I was just checking in and then completely forgot about it. I personally have no objection to you moving these comments to the GA review page (for history purposes, it may be worth preserving them there) and you are free to renominate as soon as you feel that you have dealt with the issues I have raised. Perhaps the input of someone else (i.e., another reviewer) would be valuable; I do think that the article has been much improved since I first saw it. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've listed it for peer review. After all, there's no deadline. Adam9007 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)