Talk:Dig Dug/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Man, sometimes I find myself digging up my old Namco plug-and-play just to play this game... JOE BRO 64 00:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read the article. I apologize, but at this point it's a long way from becoming a GA and is still at most a C class article. There are a plethora of glaring errors, which include:

It's not well written (1a and b). Examples from the lede:
- The game has the player controlling the titular character of Dig Dug, who must eliminate all of the enemy Pookas and Fygars that roam the underground. It's obvious Dig Dug is the title character because the game is called "Dig Dug". We also don't have any explanation as to who Dig Dug is or what Pookas and Fygars are (besides that they're enemies), and "[they] roam the underground" reads awkwardly.
- ...during the Golden age of arcade video games. The "G" is not capitalized.
- Dig Dug would receive a favorable reception from critics, although earlier home releases were less well-received. Why? What was praised and/or criticized?}}
- Jargon is not linked, such as maze video game and arcade game
It's unreliably sourced (2b):
- #1: IMDb is entirely user-generated.
- #6: I don't think MAME is reliable, as it's a fansite
- #8: I don't think "Handheld Museum" is reliable.
- #23: I don't think "agustocampos.net" is reliable
- The article is also far to reliant on primary sources.
It's not broad in coverage (3a and b):
- The lack of a development section is a massive oversight. Given how popular this game was, I find it highly unlikely nothing is known about its development cycle. I understand this may be locked in hard copy sources, but I don't imagine this ever becoming a GA if it's not included in the article.
- The reception section is incredibly weak. There's absolutely no coverage of the initial reviews besides the blanket statement about it receiving critical acclaim and popularity. What is there isn't particularly great, either. IGN thought its lack of online features was "unreliable"? What?
The Famicom cartridge photo doesn't add anything to the article, and strikes me as a derivative work because it's a picture of a copyrighted game.

JOE BRO 64 20:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What an absolute waste of time it was for me to rewrite the article, then. Namcokid47 (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be like that. I know how much effort it takes to get an article to GAN, and understand it's frustrating to get failed. The article is looking a lot better than it did last month, all I'm saying is that it's not GA quality yet. You can get it there. JOE BRO 64 21:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]