Talk:Joust 2: Survival of the Fittest

Joust 2: Survival of the Fittest 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 22, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Stardew Valley Guidebook (2 participants)
Train simulator (disambiguation) (6 participants)
Preston Arsement (2 participants)
Jackpot World (1 participant)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (5 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (5 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (5 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (14 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joust 2: Survival of the Fittest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be reviewing the article over the next few days. Below you will find the standard GAN criteria, along with a list of issues I have found. As criteria pass, a or will be replaced with a . Below the criteria you'll see a list of issues I've found. Feel free to work on them at any time. I will notify you when I'm done checking over the article. At that time I'll allow the standard one week for fixes to be made.

Criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Issues found

Gameplay - ~~This is a giant wall of text. Breaking it up would be incredibly beneficial to the reader.~~ It could also use the three refs at the end sprinkled throughout the prose so that it feels better sourced. An editor might unknowingly miss the three refs altogether. I almost did.
Reception - Is Retro Gamer the only publication that had commentary you could get? I'd certainly like to see more on critical reaction. There's good sales and legacy data here, but not much on what the critics thought of the game.
Image - There's a lot of info that's unneeded in the caption, that's more suitable as alt text. WP:CAPTION leans more towards a factoid being placed as a caption rather than "this is what the image is showing". I think the middle sentence in the caption is sufficient.
Lead - "The sequel uses more advanced hardware than the original Joust. John Newcomer led development again, which began to create hardware that allowed arcade owners to convert the cabinet into another game." I have no clue what these two sentences are trying to say. I assume it has to do with the third sentence

My review is now done. I've marked out completed issues. --Teancum (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Teancum (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I addressed the prose issues. Let me know otherwise.

I added comments from Allgame, but what's currently in the article is everything I could find for critical reception. The limited release kind of killed any chance of wide-spread reception. I'll keep looking but I don't expect to find much else. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

PASS Great job! Please take the time to review a current GAN in return for your nomination being reviewed. --Teancum (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]