Talk:Periscope (arcade game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Namcokid47 (talk · contribs) 13:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll give a more detailed review shortly, but overall it looks quite well done. Namcokid47 (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's do this thing. Let me know if you disagree with something here and we can discuss it.

Lead

1. I think "Nakamura Manufacturing Co. and Sega Enterprises, Ltd." could just be shortened to "Nakamura Manufacturing" and "Sega Enterprises" respectively.

• • Respectfully disagree here. Part of the reason for the suffixes is that Sega Enterprises would later have both Sega Enterprises, Inc. in North America and Sega Enterprises, Ltd. in Japan. Granted, that's a couple of years down the road, but leaving the suffix helps to remove confusion. And if we leave it for one, I think it's just good for consistency to leave it for the other. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    • No worries here. I'm not as knowledgeable about the history of Sega compared to Namco, so I was unaware of this. Thanks. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

1. Change "1965 (Namco, claimed)" to just "1965 (Namco)".

• • Complete as requested. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

History

1. "...better known as Namco," - this should be changed to "...later known as Namco." The Namco name wouldn't be used until 1972.

• • Fixed. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

1. "...and at the Hotel Equipment Exhibition in Paris in October 1967." This needs a source.

• • It is sourced; the tail of that sentence applies with the next inline citation, and I don't see a need to excessively duplicate it. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

1. "equivalent to $2 in 2018." - I'd suggest putting this in parentheses, like this -> ($2 in 2018).

• • Parentheses added. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There were other minor errors in the article a while ago, but I've corrected those already so I didn't bother mentioning them here. Overall, you did an excellent job with this. Namcokid47 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Just wanted to point out that the Oxford English Dictionary does not consider electromechanical a hyphenate, nor does wikipedia’s own electromechanics article. As with many pairings of two words to define a new concept, it appears this one started as a hyphenate and has now just become a single word. Indrian (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • My dearest apologies on this, I'll remove this from my review. Thanks! Namcokid47 (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Hello! Just a quick comment - I don't think this sentence is easy to understand (what is "rooftops"?) and it isn't cited: "It has been speculated that the original version built by Namco may have been a custom model for rooftops, a year prior to the mass-produced model." Cavie78 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Noted as "department store rooftops". Also, it is cited to the next inline citation, again. Citation not duplicated to avoid unnecessary repetition. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Namcokid47: All concerns addressed. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Namcokid47 (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

All the issues I've brought up in the article have been fixed in a rather swiftly time frame, and the article itself looks well-written, properly sourced with reliable references, and passes all the criteria. I'd say this article officially passes. Fantastic work, buddy! Also a warm thanks to everyone for correcting me on my mistakes, I appreciate it. I'll start the process of stating it as a Good Article. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)