Talk:The Castle Doctrine/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GamerPro64 (talk · contribs) 17:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna prepare a review for this soon so I'll just mark my claim for now. GamerPro64 17:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I was getting antsy. Tezero (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right. This article seems to be pretty well made. However, I do have some issues that should be addressed before promoting.

"These intruders are really other players of the game" This sentences wording bothers me. Maybe change it from "really" to "actually".
- Fixed. Tezero (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When listing off how to protect the vault, it includes "Setting traps" and then mentions "rigging electrified floors, digging bottomless pits". Isn't the latter two considered setting up traps? Comes off as a bit redundant.
- Fixed. Tezero (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Objects to defend the vault with are purchased with money that the player starts with[3] ($2,000)[1] and steals more of from others' vaults." What does that mean? Are there objects that can steal from other people's vault?
- The player steals more money from other people's vaults. Reworded. Tezero (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the Rock,Paper,Shotgun interview, Jason Rohrer stated that the game is set in 1993 while the lead says 1991.
- I know some other source said 1991, but I can't remember which. May look through them later, but for now I've just left it as "early 1990s". Tezero (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've been thinking about this. Is there any significance to this game being set in the early 90s? Does the reasoning for that have to do with the message the creator was trying to convey? GamerPro64 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, he mentions that the game is "pre-apocalyptic" due to its setting. Tezero (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the "Release" section is too small to have its own section. Maybe be a sub-section for "Development"?
- Yeah, I folded it and the alpha testing stuff into their own Development subsection. Tezero (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also the third paragraph's first sentence in "Development" and the first sentence in "Release" both start out the same.
- Fixed. Tezero (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So in the game, the character has to set out their own trap to see if its possible? Wouldn't that be good to mention in the "Gameplay" section?
- Done. Tezero (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Being caught in one's own traps has the same consequence as any other trap in the game, permadeath." Is that a feature in the game too or was that something they also took out? If it is a feature in the game, shouldn't that be in the "Gameplay" section instead?
- Done. Tezero (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"During alpha the game was half the release price" You mention this twice before about it being half priced in alpha. Gets redundant the third time.
- Done. Tezero (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably check again to see if there are anymore issues I have but there's are the ones that popped up at me for right now. GamerPro64 16:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any other issues that this article has. As such, I am promoting this to Good Article status. If anyone objects to this decision, you can start a review at WP:GAR. GamerPro64 01:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]