Talk:Nightshade (1985 video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First; I'm finding your sourcing a bit all over the place. Some references seem to be repeated, and the formatting is inconsistent. I'd go for simply: Smith, John (1999). "Example title". Magazine (20): 22. You don't even need an accessdate if you're just citing the online version of a print publication. This isn't technically required for GAC, but I hope you won't begrudge me the comment.

It's OK, I see what you mean. I've made an attempt to clear this up; I removed all access dates from online versions of prints and correcting the "cite journals". I don't know why I can't put the dates in brackets for some of them. JAGUAR 22:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"various other beasts" How about "supernatural creatures"?

Thanks, added. JAGUAR 22:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled by the reference to a "poisonous" enemy. Is that what has just been described, or something different? What's a "life"? Is that a colour thing?

I removed "non-poisonous" as it sounded inaccurate - just conventional hits deduct lives. To help clarify the situation, I've linked life (gaming). JAGUAR 22:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"and will diminish once utilised" What does that mean?

Rephrased. JAGUAR 22:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"an upgraded version of the Filmation engine which was first utilised in Nightshade" Is this a mistake?

Good catch, removed. JAGUAR 22:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"When a journalist reviewing Nightshade for Crash asked Tim and Chris Stamper what the object of the game was, and how large the play area was, they responded: "oh, we can't tell you that".[8]" What does this have to do with anything? Maybe it would fit better in the previous paragraph?

I included it as it seemed like a nice addition to the article. They rarely gave out interviews or spoke about their games, so I thought it was appropriate. I've rephrased it a little and moved it to the first paragraph, but I can always get rid of it if you want? JAGUAR 22:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any more recent sources? Has there been any last influence?

Unfortunately there are no retrospective/recent sources available; this game wasn't included in Rare Replay and doesn't have any recent coverage from video game critics. I got to admit, this seems like one of Ultimate's most boring games! JAGUAR 18:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check the external links? The review is a repeat of a reference, while the walkthrough and emulator potentially have copyright problems. The Ultimate Wurdle link is dead.

I got to admit I didn't look at this. I've removed everything apart from the World of Spectrum link. JAGUAR 22:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you use the Home Computing Weekly or Popular Computing Weekly reviews?

Added both. JAGUAR 18:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is useful; I've not checked everything yet. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please check my edits. The information about the ports is included in the lead, but not in the main article body- this should be fixed. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, J Milburn! I think I've got everything so far. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes or have overlooked anything. I've added both the reviews you suggested in the reception section. Regarding contemporary sources, I'm afraid there's nothing out there as this is mainly another forgotten game and this wasn't included in Rare Replay, otherwise it would have got more coverage. JAGUAR 18:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to the use of the advert image, but I wonder if we have an image of the box cover instead? At the very least, the rationale on the current image needs a lot of work.

I've uploaded the actual cover from the ZX Spectrum release, and added a better rationale along with it. Really it's the same image without the small print! JAGUAR 22:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not opposed to the use of the screenshot, but, again, the rationale needs to be fixed up.

I've updated the FUR. JAGUAR 22:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on some sourced information about the ports/release in the main article body? You could perhaps add another paragraph to "background" and rename it "Background and release"?

Sorry about that, I totally overlooked it! I've added the release info under "background and release". MobyGames always has the most accurate release dates, but sadly it's not allowed under WP:VG/S. JAGUAR 22:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely getting there- again, please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks J Milburn. Sorry for completely overlooking the release info, I remember reading it last night but it went out of my mind this morning! I've fixed up the fair use rationales, and have uploaded the actual cover to the game (it was lucky I found it, as sometimes they're almost impossible to find). JAGUAR 22:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm happy with this article is looking, so I am prepared to promote at this time. Nice work. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! JAGUAR 18:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]