Talk:Nidhogg (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 06:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I played this at a party held by my college's video game club once last year, between the endless Brawl and Skullgirls rounds. It was certainly different and interesting, so I think I'll take up the review. Looks nice overall, though I haven't dug into the prose yet. Tezero (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

"The release version of the game includes new mechanics like dive kicking, wall jumping, ledge climbing, and crawling." - Any pre-release versions haven't yet been covered in the text. Please reword or introduce the pre-release version (though this would really fit better in Development).
"The player continually pushes towards one side of the screen, such that the player is permitted a few seconds to run towards their opponent's side while their opponent respawns after dying." - Why use "the player" a second time if you're okay with "their"? Seems kinda stilted.
"and Meshof felt lucky to have Daedelus as the game's composer." - Relevance? Is there a better way to introduce Daedelus?
"Messhof considers the single-player to be training for the online multiplayer, which he considered training for live matches." - Why the tense shift?
Any more information about the music? It's a free-use image, sure, but part of a sentence seems a little thin to justify an image of Daedelus.
You know how I feel about reviewer-by-reviewer organization, but I won’t contest it. Reception in general could go a bit more into detail considering the number of reviews, but again, not an issue for GA.
I'll put the article on hold for these minor prose issues.

Tezero (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tezero, done. Let me know what you think? Thanks for the review! (As for the reviewer-by-reviewer, I think that can be taken both ways [either patchwork from each reviewer or each reviewer having their own paragraph]. Anyway, I think this batch of articles takes the most important stuff from each article and attempts to not waste space on formality unless it's particularly helpful. czar ♔ 02:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, czar, what you've done is great. You and I tend to lie at opposite ends of the complete vs. brief continuum among what's acceptable for GAs/FAs, but this does look nice and sometimes fluff just distracts from the focus. Passing. Tezero (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]