Talk:Battlemorph
 | Battlemorph has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 23, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Merger
[edit]I fully support the proposal to merge, and say that if there are no objections to the merger then I will do it on or around January 1, 2009. Cndrblck (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Battlemorph/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 00:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a. (reference section):
- b. (citations to reliable sources):
- c. (OR):
- d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a. (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (major aspects):
- b. (focused):
- a. (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- Pass/fail:
(Criteria marked 
are unassessed)
- Unsure if this is a reliable source
- I can positively say that Mag.MO5.com is a reliable source. Guillaume Verdin (who wrote the article currently in use) previously wrote a feature for French magazine Pix'n Love and he is currently a freelance writer at the French gaming website Gamekult (Here is his resume [1 ]). Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- All right, perfect. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- I can positively say that Mag.MO5.com is a reliable source. Guillaume Verdin (who wrote the article currently in use) previously wrote a feature for French magazine Pix'n Love and he is currently a freelance writer at the French gaming website Gamekult (Here is his resume [1 ]). Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at it, the artists seem to be cited by the credits, which I feel is insufficient. Can you find any sources that confirm they work on the game besides the game's credits?
- I used a review of the game by German magazine MAN!AC (which list the staff in their review at the top [2 ]) as reference. I did use the game's credit as reference (an example i followed by other editors at Wikipedia) to clarify their exact roles. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, that suffices. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- I used a review of the game by German magazine MAN!AC (which list the staff in their review at the top [2 ]) as reference. I did use the game's credit as reference (an example i followed by other editors at Wikipedia) to clarify their exact roles. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Same deal for Holtom, Howe, Long, McPbail, Baker, Shaw-Morton, and Davis.
- Again, i used the review of magazine MAN!AC magazine as reference, along with the game's credits to clarify their roles. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Same as above. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Again, i used the review of magazine MAN!AC magazine as reference, along with the game's credits to clarify their roles. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- The claim that the AI is "more helpful" than in Cybermorph needs stronger citation attached.
- I rearranged the sentence (P.S. If another retrospecitve review ever pops up that mentions what was originally mentioned in the gameplay section, i'll reintroduce it, but i think the sentence will be fine without it for the time being). Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- atarijaguar website should just be replaced with the tweet of Rob's citing his participation
- Since there is a book which mentions Rob Bryden's participation in the game, i decided to remove the reference. Keep in mind that the atarijaguar.co.uk was originally hosted by Tom Charnock, a freelance games journalist ([3 ]). I've seen the work of Charnock previously in Retro Gamer magazine. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Receptions section should be paraphrased more in places, such as the GamePro sentence
- I tried to do better paraphrasing in the reception section. I hope that one sticks the landing... Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Is Atari Times a reliable source?
- Doing some quick research put my initial thoughts to rest: Turns out that The Atari Times was originally a newsletter started by the reviewer (Gregory D. George) back in 1996 (4 ]). It seems they transitioned to an online format sometime in the 90s or in the 2000s. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Cukie Gherkin:I addressed all the bullet points that needed to be fixed or rearranged. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Seems solid.
- @Cukie Gherkin:I addressed all the bullet points that needed to be fixed or rearranged. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Doing some quick research put my initial thoughts to rest: Turns out that The Atari Times was originally a newsletter started by the reviewer (Gregory D. George) back in 1996 (4 ]). It seems they transitioned to an online format sometime in the 90s or in the 2000s. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)