Talk:Development of Doom/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 16:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
If I don't get back to this in four days, please ping. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Review
[edit]- The lead has multiple cases of the developer names being linked in the first paragraph, then being repeated in full in the second paragraph. You might also want to check the rest of the article for this.
- It's on purpose, unfortunately- with 2 "Carmack"s, I've been asked in prior articles to specify which one I mean, even if the context (programming vs art) would make it clear. Note that it's "Hall" and "Romero", but the Carmacks always get a first name.
- and it was immediately met with a rush of players. - I take it this means it was successful? Or were the players running? Elaboration needed.
- Fixed.
- ...Doom would be "Wolfenstein times a million!" - Italise Wolfenstein.
- Fixed.
- The "Development release versions" section has multiple uncited parts. Does the reference in the first sentance contain this information? --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that citation (video) covers the whole table- Romero/Hall walk through the development year and show off videos of those 5 builds as part of it.
That's all that stood out. Putting on hold for now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- @ProtoDrake: Replied. --PresN 16:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- @PresN: I understand the issue with the names. I don't see any reason to keep this article any longer. I'll give this a Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)