Talk:Surround (video game)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) 14:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: KwanFlakes (talk · contribs) 09:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Picking up and beginning this review. Thank you Andrzejbanas, for improving and expanding this article. Since I am still new to GA reviewing an experienced reviewer will also be taking a look. I'll have some initial comments in the next 24 hours.

Review

Overall a well-written article and one that shouldn't need too much work to get it over the line. Room for improvement with regard to grammatical and contextual issues are noted below, split by section. There was also one issue found with the references. This article has been placed on a 7-day hold to allow time for these improvements to occur.

Lead

The reference to Blockade in the first paragraph causes the rest of the paragraph to read like a description for that game, not necessarily Surround itself. As the similarities between the games are noted in the next paragraph, removing this reference or rewording the paragraph could be considered (though I'd personally go for removal).

Fair. Tried re-phrasing this and introducing the historical stuff about Blockade later. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

“Video Graffiti” is described as being a single mode here and in the Development section, but as two modes in other parts of the article.

Good call. Re-phrased this to note there are two modes of "Video Graffiti". Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Gameplay

The second paragraph here reads quite clunky, especially with the sentence beginning “The final two modes are…” being sandwiched between “Other modes allow for…” and “A final feature offers…”.

All true. Tried to re-organize this. Tell me what you think. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the only thing (aside from the reference) that I think needs a bit of work before proceeding. The game modes provide notable variations on gameplay and are (from the reviews) pretty central to a full enjoyment of the game. I think it's notable that there are only five variations (players, speed, diagonal movement, erase, and wraparound) that combine in various ways to produce different games. I think this paragraph needs a little bit of an overhaul to capture everything, though the sentences relating to the "Video Graffiti" mode are currently very good. KwanFlakes (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair. I've made it more clear. Looking at the box, I didn't even realize that most of these are only available in two-player mode. I think applying the table is a bit over the top, but I think it is clear in the prose now what is available. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Really good, and yeah the box was likely a little too much but what you've done sums it up really well! KwanFlakes (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Development

Music Operators of America was given the acronym MOA in the lead, so probably doesn’t need to be reproduced again here. Consider either replacing “Music Operators of America (MOA)” with “MOA” or removing the “(MOA)” both here and in the lead.

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

“Video Graffiti” is described as being a single mode here and in the lead section, but as two modes in other parts of the article.

Re-phrased. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Release

Is there a particular reason the review box doesn’t include all reviews mentioned in the article?

Can't find the specific rule for this, but I believe we only include numeric ratings in this infobox. Not terms like "positive, "very positive" "very negative" etc. I feel weird about including Video{'}s number ratings, as there is no "overall score" which I don't think we should include per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. I think explaining it in the prose clarifies for it anyone reading the article.Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right, and am happy with this section. KwanFlakes (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The reviews by Video mention “the first 12 variations of the game”. Keeping with the rest of the article, “modes” or “game modes” may be more fitting and reduce confusion for a general audience.

re-phrased to modes and clarified they are talking about the snake game. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Following from the above, the total number of variations/modes is not listed or clear either here or elsewhere, and references to specific game modes (particularly the reference to “mode six”) lack meaning and context. It could be worth defining all game modes somewhere, or perhaps going into more detail here about the specific variety of gameplay that mode 6 offers. I notice the "game select matrix" on page 4 of the game manual — could that be worth reproducing as a table somewhere?

I've re-phrased this. I'd normally re-do the modes, but I'm worried about waddling too much into overt details that only interest specific viewers or a "guide". The modes just vary a few gameplay things, so instead of having a player have to go back and forht to check what happens in mode 6, i've explained the mode there (w/source) Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the right way to go about it, but that the modes might need more explaining (as said above). KwanFlakes (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The final sentence in the first paragraph (beginning "David H. Ahl found…”) likely needs to be broken up or reworded for clarity.

Tried re-phrasing this. The Grafitti mode is practically its own bonus thing, so I had different viewers comment on it here on their own. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The portion of the final sentence of this section “saying its unique gameplay to the system” could be reworded to increase the clarity of the sentence, which is at present confusing.

Re-phrased. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

References

The book Atari Archive: Vol.1 1977-1978 by Kevin Bunch appears to have been published in 2023, but is listed as being published in 2022.

The book in question has a copyright set for 2022. I think it did release in 2023, but not sure what's the best solution for this here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that per WP:UNDATED the date should be the date of publication. KwanFlakes (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. I've made these changes. Relatively inconsequential in general terms. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is a well-written article, which should have no issue getting over the line for good article status with a few improvements.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article is well-written, with minor typographical and grammatical errors which have been corrected. Room for improvement has been noted and the article has been placed on hold to allow for these changes to be addressed. Improvements noted have been made and the article now appears to meet this criterion.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Spot-check: 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 13, 18, 22, 24. All good.

   Article is well-referenced and citations are verifiable. No copyright violations or plagiarism found. One reference needs attention. Reference date corrected — references good.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article provides the appropriate amount of information for a good article. Adequate detail is provided while staying on-topic and avoiding unnecessary technical information.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article gives proper weight to positive and negative reviews of the game, and maintains NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No ongoing edit war or content dispute apparent.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   One image is public domain, and the two other images have a valid non-free use rationale. All images have appropriate captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Hold while improvements are made in line with above comments. KwanFlakes (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, @KwanFlakes:, I believe I've addressed all your comments. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Amazing work yet again, @Andrzejbanas:. I've made a couple more comments for your review. Not far to go now! KwanFlakes (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the kinds words! I think everything has been addressed @KwanFlakes:. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

All set from me — another experienced reviewer will come double check soon, and we should be able to approve the GA status soon! KwanFlakes (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

One final thing @Andrzejbanas — could it be worth noting the alternate Telegames title in the lead somewhere? It's currently buried in the body of the article and it feels like it could be notable that it was released under an alternative name. I look at Resident Evil as an example, where the alternate title is a footnote attached to the main title. Let me know what you think. KwanFlakes (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Its gotten a bit "footnotey" in the lead, but I think this will satisfy any issues. Good to go @KwanFlakes: ? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good — I think it’ll be fine considering it’s just two footnotes for context for readers who might otherwise be confused. Happy to continue, still waiting on an experienced reviewer but will let you know once that’s done @Andrzejbanas :) KwanFlakes (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @KwanFlakes:, I'll have a look at this review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's first start with immediate failures.

• You've checked whether the article has copyright violation and concluded that there is no copyright violation. I agree with you.
• There are no cleanup banners or tags.
• The article is stable.
• This is the first GA nomination for this article.

We can continue now onto the six GA criteria.

• You've checked all six criteria, and after having a look at the article, I agree with you. If you don't have any questions, feel free to promote the article.

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

All good, thanks for the assistance! This will be promoted now @Andrzejbanas — well done again on all your work here. KwanFlakes (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.