Talk:868-HACK

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:868-HACK/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

opening Kingsif (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

868 hack logo on commons
  • Copyvio check looks fine - I removed what little copyvio seemed apparent
  • History clean
  • The infobox image should be replaced by a free rendering of the pixel art logo (I just did one in a few minutes)
  • Non-free gameplay image has fair use rationale
  • Other media all good
  • Passes stability criteria
  • Copyright and illustration criteria need attention
  • Sources look fine
  • I don't know if Steam reviews are user-generated or not, this may not be able to be an RS
  • Verifiability criteria needs attention
  • Accolades section could have some prose
  • Lead is fine, but I recommend moving the Plan.B mention to the end of the release dates paragraph.
  • I've marked part of the gameplay section as needing clarification because I cannot understand it at all
  • In Development, "porting" needs a wikilink
  • I've corrected a bunch of "a" → 'an' and "in" → 'on'. If this is a repeated issue, you could ask for copyedits before more noms - it would be a real pain in longer articles.
  • The response should also have more prose between the quotes. It's good, but short enough that it does need some extra touch.
  • Style criteria needs attention
  • Is there no more coverage? attention
  • I removed a slightly npov statement in the Brough image caption, so passes neutrality
  •  On hold Kingsif (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingsif, All done. It received copyedit before the nom. [1] ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great. Perhaps another reminder of the limitations of GOCE. Edits are good, but Most of the enemies have two types of health, one that can move around two tile at a time, another enemy has three health bars, and another enemy is invisible until it comes into the player's line of fire still doesn't make sense, i.e. it starts by suggesting there will be a list of two similar things; it then lists three dissimilar things that aren't in the stated category. Is the source accessible so I could try to find what you're describing? Kingsif (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Kingsif (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif,
Most of the enemies have two three types of health:
  1. one that can move around two tiles at a time
  2. another enemy has three health bars
  3. another enemy is invisible until it comes into the player's line of fire ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 07:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Two of those are not types of health though - the first and last are special abilities. The middle one might be, too, if the other enemies have lower health bars. Is it that "the enemies can have one of three different special abilities: being able to move over two tiles at a time, having three health bars instead of [X], or being invisible until it is in the player's line of fire." ? Kingsif (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, the source says Most have two health, but each has a twist – one type moves two tiles at a time, another has three health, another is invisible until in your line of fire [2] ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Yeah - the "twist" isn't a type of health. Most have two bars of health. But some have three. Those that only have two have a different 'twist' or special ability, to make them different and challenging. I can correct the phrasing in the article and then it should be good! Kingsif (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: No problem, man - nice work. Kingsif (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk). Self-nominated at 15:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]