Talk:Battlemorph/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 00:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

1. Unsure if this is a reliable source

I can positively say that Mag.MO5.com is a reliable source. Guillaume Verdin (who wrote the article currently in use) previously wrote a feature for French magazine Pix'n Love and he is currently a freelance writer at the French gaming website Gamekult (Here is his resume [1 ]). Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

All right, perfect. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

1. Looking at it, the artists seem to be cited by the credits, which I feel is insufficient. Can you find any sources that confirm they work on the game besides the game's credits?

I used a review of the game by German magazine MAN!AC (which list the staff in their review at the top [2 ]) as reference. I did use the game's credit as reference (an example i followed by other editors at Wikipedia) to clarify their exact roles. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that suffices. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

1. Same deal for Holtom, Howe, Long, McPbail, Baker, Shaw-Morton, and Davis.

Again, i used the review of magazine MAN!AC magazine as reference, along with the game's credits to clarify their roles. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Same as above. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

1. The claim that the AI is "more helpful" than in Cybermorph needs stronger citation attached.

I rearranged the sentence (P.S. If another retrospecitve review ever pops up that mentions what was originally mentioned in the gameplay section, i'll reintroduce it, but i think the sentence will be fine without it for the time being). Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

1. atarijaguar website should just be replaced with the tweet of Rob's citing his participation

Since there is a book which mentions Rob Bryden's participation in the game, i decided to remove the reference. Keep in mind that the atarijaguar.co.uk was originally hosted by Tom Charnock, a freelance games journalist ([3 ]). I've seen the work of Charnock previously in Retro Gamer magazine. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

1. Receptions section should be paraphrased more in places, such as the GamePro sentence

I tried to do better paraphrasing in the reception section. I hope that one sticks the landing... Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

1. Is Atari Times a reliable source?

Doing some quick research put my initial thoughts to rest: Turns out that The Atari Times was originally a newsletter started by the reviewer (Gregory D. George) back in 1996 (4 ]). It seems they transitioned to an online format sometime in the 90s or in the 2000s. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin:I addressed all the bullet points that needed to be fixed or rearranged. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems solid.