Talk:British Open Championship Golf/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bridies (talk · contribs) 16:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Review to follow shortly. bridies (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Prose and layout

Prose is good and comfortably meets the criteria. I did wonder whether it was necessary to describe the game of golf: you might want to consider ditching “a sport in which players attempt to hit a ball into a hole with as few strokes as possible” and just linking golf. Maybe.

There were two reasons behind this decision: first, because I try to break a game down to its most basic core in the first sentence of Gameplay (see Flight Unlimited#Gameplay as another example); second, because I was copying the only other golf game GA, Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour. If you still think it should be removed, I'll take it out. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let's leave it. I was really just casting about for a useful suggestion for the prose... bridies (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor concerns with the ref section:
- I'm not sure that GameSpot and GameSpy should be italicized.

Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm also wondering why the publisher in reference 18 is given as Game Developer rather than GamaSutra. I understand that the former is owned by the latter but can’t see Game Developer mentioned on the page.

It's technically a postmortem that was reposted online after being featured in Game Developer, but I see your point. Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The same GameSpot review seems to be linked in both the notes and external links section and I think could be safely removed from the latter.

Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy/Sourcing

Everything is attributed to a source. I sampled some of the direct quotes and the claim regarding the unique use of the St. Andrews course and they check out.

My only concern is the claim that "it was generally well received by critics", attributed to a single article, is pushing WP:WEASEL. The article seems to be written by someone from the company which might also raise neutrality concerns.

Hmmm. This is problematic, because there are no other sources for that (demonstrably true) sentence. As a defense for the neutrality of that source, I can say that Chey didn't work at Looking Glass when he wrote the article. He did work on BOCG as a programmer, though. Your call. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of a direct attribution as with the other material in the reception section, which would nail it down as a writer's recollection. But yeah, it's borderline and doesn't go against the other content in that section. bridies (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

Has all the standard video game sections (I think it's a safe assumption an golf game doesn't need a plot section...) and information well-covered.
It would be nice if more weight was given to the game's commercial failure, perhaps some commentary or speculation on why it was so badly received commercially. That said, I realise such commentary may simply not exist for an old golf game...

I too would love to have this information, but sadly I don't believe that any citable material regarding it exists. I added a tiny bit more on the company's actions after its release, but I can't link them too directly to this game alone--most sources state that BOCG was only one element of the LGS financial crisis during this period. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we can fairly say the article reflects the research. bridies (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

No reverts in the last page of history.

Images

Standard video game images with acceptable FURs. Also nice use of a free image.

Overall:

*On hold for now bridies (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Many thanks for the review. Replied inline. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. bridies (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]