Talk:Ace (video game)

Before a GA...

@Hellknowz:, this article is suffering from the disease of overcitification, a rather serious case in fact. It appears that almost every word of the gameplay section can be taken from one or two sources, so I think the article would greatly improve with some triage in this respect. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Haha, you should see it before I trimmed it. Mostly it is because none of the sources provided all the details, so to write it out coherently I had to pull stuff together from all the different places, which leaves attribution... well, overcitified. Anyway, I trimmed everything down to 1 source per statmenent unless it's something more involved. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ace (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 18:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Ok, overall there's some solid progress here. I have a few comments:

• Prose:
  • Ace (stylized as ACE as acronym for Air Combat Emulator) is a flight simulator video game developer by Cascade Games for various home computers, starting in 1985—should be "developed", and you should probably just two sentences to describe when the game was released, as right now you could read it as being developed starting in 1985.
    • That's sort of how it was. They began and released the first version in 1985, then ports to other systems. It was in context of [1]. I'll reword it that it is a release. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Guy had a pilot's license—For consistency and style you should make sure everyone is referred to by their last name.
    • Whoops, changed to last name. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Martin describes that an error in advertisement and threat of action by Advertising Standards Agency forced them to also port a Plus/4 version.—This should probably just be reworded to clarify exactly why they were forced to port a Plus/4 version (that an ad mistakenly promised a Plus/4 version.)
    • Reworded to Martin describes that an advertisement erroneously promising a Plus/4 version forced them to develop it under threat of action by Advertising Standards Agency. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • There's issues throughout the article here and there with verb tenses (for example the last paragraph starts saying "the project would not be possible"; here and elsewhere the "would" auxilary verb suggests present tense, when it should really just be made plainly past tense.)
    • Fixed the obvious ones in development section, though I'm not sure I can spot. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Reviewers also negatively remarked upon the inclusion of Lenslok color wheel protection system.—you probably need to explain how this system works briefly.
    • Added ..the game would display a garbled image and the player would need to use the provided colored lens to view the two-letter code.
  • The later ports to Amstrad and DOS received less critical attention—source for this? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, et al, and could be considered synthesis.
    • Yeah, looking back, that's me doing some OR there... —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • There's some there issues throughout with prose but I don't think they're issues that hold up GA criteria.
• Images:
  • File:Ace (Air Combat Emulator) Commodore 64 gameplay screenshot.png: I feel like this image needs more support to meet NFC criteria, such as specific elements being called out in the reviews.
    • I'll see if reviews talk more about stuff like dogfights or try to find a screenshot with something they do talk about (mid-air refuelling probably). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• References:
  • What makes Commodore Horizons and Lemon64 reliable sources? Other citations look to be to fine.
    • The Lemon source itself is likely not reliable. In this case, I am using it as primary source from the game's programmer (Ian Martin). (I'm also ignoring his self-review of the game.) In prose, I am adding that this info comes from Martin directly where that source supports material.
    • Commodore Horizons looks like a typical magazine of the time. It was published by Sunshine Books/Scot Press, which had a bunch of other publications. They have a proper staff, editorial, etc. It's not on the high end of magazines, but I'm not sure if it's any worse than other similar mags. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I went through and spot-checked statements cited to current refs 1, 3, 5, 7, 13, 21, and 29.
    • Current ref one does not support the following statement: only described as an enemy invasion against the remaining Allied forces.
      • That's probably me doing SYNTH (i.e. absence of evidence). I reworded to just The game is set on the Southern coastland of England during an enemy invasion against the remaining Allied forces. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't think this statement: As the game progresses, the difficulty ramps up making it challenging to finish the game. is adequately sourced to ref 7, which mentions nothing about the difficulty changing over the course of the game.
      • Yeah, it says "if the flying is easy(ish), then winning if flippin' hard". And the other ref said ".. deceptively difficult to finish", so I'll reword it better. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I moved it to reception and added as challenging to finish for those to sources as per quotes above. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Given the above issues I think you should go through and re-verify sourcing to make sure there aren't any similar leaps.

—Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Per this comment, I trimmed the multiple refs per statement. I'll go back and reattach where appropriate then try and go through them all and reword closer to the original. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I went back an reattached the references originally there and trimmed where redundant and adjusted where not. I probably need to take another pass at it and reword any ORness I introduced. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for review, I'll try to address these. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Great. Ping me when you want me to take another look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hellknowz: Just checking in to see how things are progressing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Has it been over 2 week already! Sorry for the long delay. First I had tons of work, then GDC happened, then I got ill... The fates are conspiring! —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay on my end. Finally through re-reading the article and it looks like my concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Passing as GA. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries about the delay and thank you for the review. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)