Talk:I-War (1995 video game)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:I-War (1995 video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 20:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead

1. Fixed some spelling errors, linking, and grammar (ie, complemented into complimented)
2. Should say that it it is a first-person 3D game in the lead.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

1. Seems good

Gameplay

1. Largely fine, made some tweaks for better readability and wording.

Development

1. I reckon you can probably avoid saying that he discussed it in the thread, merely cite the things he said.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Release

1. Would there be any way to mention the original title in the lead? I also wonder if the name could be removed from this section, merely clarifying that it was marketed under it after it's first mentioned in the development section.

 Done -- I managed to squeeze in the original title in the lead section. I thought about removing the Redemption name from the release section but i wanted to keep it that way because that's how the game was first announced before being released as I-War. I also remembered that i arranged the line that way based on old suggestions of another GA reviewer in regards to another Jaguar game (BattleSphere). But if you have any other suggestions then you're welcome to say it and i'll add it into the article. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Reception

1. The EGM source claims that the four reviewers stated it being a combination, but only one reviewer did, so that should be clarified.

 Done -- Ah, i can clarify this: the EGM score in the reception section is actually the aggregate based on the scores the four EGM reviewers gave to the game. I took it from MobyGames (1). I decided to place a note indicating that it was reviewed by four critics. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Files

1. The gameplay screenshot needs to have a more specific fair use rationale. "Not replaceable with free media because" and "Respect for commercial opportunities" should have n.a. replaced.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

1. The fair use rationale should be more specific; it's not *bad*, but you should absolutely clarify some aspects of its visuals or gameplay that make it important to show.

 Done -- With what's written on the gameplay and development sections, the new description now details how the game plays and looks. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

1. @KGRAMR: Did you take the screenshot yourself? If so, it would be appreciated if you could clarify that.

 Done -- Yes, i am the one who took the screenshot via the Phoenix emulator. The screenshot is of my own gameplay and it's not taken from any website. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

1. To the average reader, what is happening in the screenshot may be confusing, and thus should have a caption that goes into greater detail than merely "Gameplay screenshot." For example, I find it difficult to tell what is going on. Are these enemies all over the screen? Projectiles?

 Done -- I placed a better gameplay description based on what's happening on the image. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources

1. Is Atari Times a reliable source? I feel like I may have asked another editor this, but I'm not sure, as I do not see it on the video game reliable source database.

I can easily answer you this question, since another GA reviewer asked it too during the process with Atari Karts: The Atari Times was originally a newsletter started by the reviewer (Gregory D. George) back in 1996 (1). They transitioned to an online format sometime in the 90s or in the 2000s. George also published books about The Atari Times, which included words by other reviewers. They're kinda like the Hardcore Gaming 101 books for comparison (2). Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I actually think I may have asked this in a previous GAN you did, haha. I'll try to keep this in mind. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

1. Is MO5 a reliable source? I similarly cannot find it on the reliable sources page.

MO5.com (1) is a video game website and association launched in 1996. Their articles are basically the equivalent of those seen in Gematsu, but focused on retro gaming instead although they occasionally do article about more modern game releases. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I see. I'll take on faith its reliability, though I recommend you bring this up at the video games reliable source page just to get it established as an RS. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

1. I've performed a spotcheck on the following sources: the aforementioned EGM source (which will be approved for accuracy once what I assume is a simple wording error); EGM issue 78 (the citation for page 138); the AtariAge forum source; and Jaguar Explorer Online. No issues found with accuracy.

Plagiarism (none found)

1. I've done a plagiarism check and found no issues.

@Cukie Gherkin:I've read the comments. I'm almost finished working on another article so, i'll get to your in quiries later today or tomorrow. Either way, i'll make sure to respond each question! Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin:All done now! If there are any remaining questions, then let me know :) Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, passed. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin:Thank you for reviewing the article :D Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)