Talk:Joust (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

1.Well-written

Over-all clear and concise with a few grammatical nuances which interrupt the flow of reading.

The Lead

• I don't understand this sentence Staff worked within the technical limitations of the hardware (original developed two years earlier for Williams' first game, Defender), excluding concepts and optimizing the visuals.
• Was the hardware "originally" developed two years earlier for Defender? Did this hardware have a name? And what are you trying to say with "excluding concepts and optimizing visuals."
• In this sentence, I recommend wikilinking the word "sequel" to the article of Joust 2. Joust was followed by a sequel three years later, and was ported to numerous home and portable platforms.

Gameplay

• No issues

Development

• What are you saying here:"A pack of three AA batteries saves the game's settings and high scores when the machine is unplugged from an electrical outlet."? Are you inferring that the three AA batteries literally save the data or does it work like a backup generator for the arcade machine?
• In this quote: "Hendricks originally picked grey for the buzzards, but chose green instead to optimize the color palette—the developers had only 16 colors to create the visuals." instead of a dash, perhaps you can replace it with the word as to make the sentence flow a bit easier.

Reception and legacy

• No Issues

2.Factually accurate and verifiable

• Quick Pass

3.Broad in its coverage

• Quick pass

4.Neutral

• Quick Pass

5.Stable

• Quick pass

6.Illustrated

• Quick Pass

I'm just putting down the criteria real quick so you can recognize i'm reviewing it. It'll come in piece by piece so I won't have my verdict until I reach the end. Final Word: Very, very good article. It seems the editors who worked on this have created good articles prior to this one. As soon as my complaints are adressed this passes with flying colors.

Reviewer: Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried to address your comments in this edit and in my reply below.

• I did not link sequel per WP:OVERLINK. But I added it as a blue link will probably make the last paragraph easier to read.
• The part after the em dash was difficult to fit in, so that's why I used the dash as per MOS:EMDASH. Anywhere else already broke the flow. Essentially, that's the best I could come up with, so I'm not sure how to copy edit it. I'm open to ideas though.

Let know if there's any thing else. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

Yeah, I see your point about OVERLINK. I guess I can let it slide. Maybe you can replace the dash with "as" instead? Well, it's only one thing so it doesn't make it any worse of an article. So i'll go ahead and pass it anyways. Nice article. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)