Talk:Battletoads (1991 video game)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 08:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • with critics praising the graphics and unique variations of gameplay - remove "unique" for consistency
  • It won six categories from the 1991 - Instead of "categories", "awards" is much more straightforward.
  • The game is a scrolling beat 'em up video game - The lead mentioned it as a "platform game". It should be mentioned again here as well.
  • continues after reaching a game over. - Changes it to "after players die/get defeated"
  • are presented with no depth - What does this mean?
  • Graphical language. I've rephrased to "isometric" JAGUAR  19:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think mentioning the features of all levels is necessary. I suggest to trim it down a bit.
  • a climbing/jumping "snake maze" - don't use "/"
  • tower before an opposing rat does. - "rat" should not be mentioned here. Change it to simply "opponent"
  • The player or players, choose one.
  • To create a contrast to the popular media franchise, Rare added extra mechanics in the game to help separate it from similarly themed "beat 'em ups" - These extra mechanics are added because they wanted to create a contrast to the TMNT franchise, to separate it with other similar themed games, or both?
  • Only the latter, clarified JAGUAR  19:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • however as the game gradually became more "graphic" - What is the meaning of "graphic" here?
  • Battletoads has been ported for various consoles upon its original June 1991 release for the NES - Do not use short form here. You should also wikilink NES.
  • Ports for PC DOS and the Atari ST were planned by Mindscape but never released - Is there a reason for this?
  • I couldn't find any reason why the ports were cancelled, I even tried searching through unreliable sources to find a reason but I found nothing. Usually ports are cancelled due to the consoles themselves not selling well (and how much of the market they owned), but still I wouldn't like to insinuate this in the article with nothing to back it up. If you think it's best, I could remove it? JAGUAR  19:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mega Drive version of Battletoads features all of the levels, music and animations from the original, albeit with "toned down" difficulty. - Do not think this example is good. It does not provide any additional information. The previous sentence has already mentioned that all the ports are doing the same.
  • I agree. I've rephrased this to make it sound less factual JAGUAR  19:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • owing to Rare's acquisition by Microsoft. - It is not really a reason that led to the release of Rare Replay.
  • The co-op bug in the 11th level of the game, where player two's controller stopped working, has been fixed in this version. - People who are not familiar with the game would not understand what this means. I suggest to rephrase it to "Several bugs featured in the original release were fixed in Rare Replay."
  • Done, thanks JAGUAR  19:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same review, Paul Rand of CVG similarly - "from CVG" is no longer necessary, since you have mentioned "in the same review" already. You can also choose to rephrase it to "Paul Rand, another reviewer from CVG,"
  • Rand heralded the "put-together" gameplay as addictive - What is "put-together"? What he is referring to?
  • I'm not sure myself, I didn't think he was very clear in his review (some reviewers of the 80s/early 90s really had no editorial standards. In some cases I've actually had to guess what they were trying to say about the game). I've just cut "put-together", but I think he was trying to say that the gameplay had a lot of different variations in it JAGUAR  19:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can create a subsection called "Awards"
  • I suggest to paraphrase some of the quotes in the difficulty section.
  • This section was always a pain. I've done a few copyedits JAGUAR  19:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spike's Ending list is not really related to the game's difficulty. I suggest to move it somewhere in the main critical reception part.
  • Moved (and rephrased) JAGUAR  19:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I've never used that tool before! That's handy. I've done some copyediting here and there, but it seems that it picked up the plot from being similar to a source, which should be fine considering it's a plot and doesn't require a source. Retrogames is a Wiki-clone and I think that's why it explains it JAGUAR  19:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 13 needs to have its author, work, date and accessdate field filled.
  • Who published source 34?
  • I looked everywhere, but there is no author given. The only thing I could do when adding this ref was to allocate the publisher to Virgin Media JAGUAR  19:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author field of source 35 need to be filled.
  • Source 37's Spike should not be capitalized.
  • Updated FUR JAGUAR  19:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list corporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Article is well-written and comprehensive. There is only some minor issues. When you have addressed all the issues it should be good to go. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review AdrianGamer! I've attempted to address all of your concerns, and I hope I didn't leave anything out. The one thing that bothered me was not finding a reason why the Atari ST port was shelved, but where such information cannot be found I just leave it as it is. If there is anything else I can do, please let me know. Thanks again! JAGUAR  19:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for addressing all the issues so quickly. Battletoads (video game) is now a Congratulations. AdrianGamer (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battletoads_(1991_video_game)/GA1&oldid=1141702209"