Talk:Falklands '82

Active discussions

GA ReviewEdit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Falklands '82/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 22:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review. Freikorp (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  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 lists:
    "attack, move, pass and reece" - what does reece mean?
    I... initially didn't have any idea. It was never explained in any review and YouTube videos of the game don't exist so I couldn't get a good idea of what it means. However, a dictionary search of 'reece' states that it means reconnaissance (especially in British military use), and I think that links to the concept of the SAS being sent to gather intelligence in the game, so I've linked it to reconnaissance. Thank god for the internet! JAGUAR  17:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    "The game was apparently planned" - why only apparently? You seem unsure here, whereas the lead seems confident about the matter.
    Just a bad choice of wording - rephrased JAGUAR  17:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    Why did the "Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and The Sun" criticise the game? Was it also for allowing Argentine to win? This is never clarified. Also if the criticism didn't occur until the game was released I don't think the information belongs in the background section, perhaps it should get it's own paragraph in the reception section.
    I've renamed the background section to "development and release", however information on development is still non-existent. When articles don't have anything on development (the norm for early 80s video games), I use a background section on the company as an alternative. According to the source The Sun criticised the game for the potential of "Argentina winning" the war, but information on that is scarce. I've removed that extract from the development section and expanded it slightly in the reception section JAGUAR  17:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    "Following years of successful sales throughout the mid 1980s..." - this is interesting, but i'm not sure if its relevant. Is there any particular reason why this information is here instead of at the article for Personal Software Services? Unless you can directly tie the companies downfall to the game i'm not convinced it belongs here.
    The Personal Software Services article looks like it hasn't been touched since 2007! As I mentioned above, when information on development is scarce I include a little background on the company (as I have done with Ultimate Play The Game articles). However I see what you mean about it being irrelevant, so I've removed the entire paragraph JAGUAR  17:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    As I know you put a lot of effort into finding reviews, i'd say it's clear only 3 sources reviewed this game. Technically 2 out of 3 is "mostly positive", but considering there were only 3 review maybe there is better wording available. How about a brief mention of what Sinclair User and Your Sinclair like about the game in the lead, and a brief mention of what Crash didn't like? Or if you have a different suggestion i'm happy to hear it.
    I've expanded the reception in the lead. As usual I summarised what critics liked and disliked about the game, it seems to me that only Crash heavily criticised the gameplay, otherwise many didn't mind the game being about a touchy subject! JAGUAR  17:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  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: Infobox image is fine.
    I'm not sure if you can justify having two fair uses screenshots but i'm no image licensing expert so I won't fail the nomination for this. You might want to look into that though.
    I looked through WP:FUR, WP:FUC and WP:OVERUSE but I couldn't find anything regarding having two fair use screenshots in the same article. I've done it with other GAs such as Jumping Flash! 2, and I've seen some other VG articles that have numerous images as a necessity. I'm no image licencing expert either, so if proven wrong I'll have to remove it JAGUAR  17:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Nice work on the article. Placing on hold till minor issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Freikorp! I think I've addressed everything. I've re-worked the development section and tweaked the reception/lead. If I missed anything or if there is something you think I can add, please let me know. This has been the first time I've created an article and built it up to GA JAGUAR  17:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Passing. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


The cover art says and infobox image caption says Commodore 64. The article has no mention of Commodore 64 anywhere else though. Was a C64 version released? --The1337gamer (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Added, I completely overlooked that. I didn't even think of it when the cover art states it clearly! JAGUAR  16:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Falklands '82. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Falklands '82" page.