Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Defender 2000. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160918131803/http://www.ataritimes.com/article.php?showarticle=14 to http://www.ataritimes.com/article.php?showarticle=14
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 05:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Defender 2000/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: KGRAMR (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 01:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pick up this one and finalise the review of Hugo's House of Horrors this week. Just moved house, so now can dedicate a bit more time to GAN reviews. I understand that you may want your work to have exposure and feedback from multiple editors, and my approach can be a little light-on where others can be a bit more intensive. Let me know if you have any thoughts on this, otherwise looking forward to reviewing. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Review
Does the article conform to the general standards of WP:VG articles including the WP:VG/MOS? 
Y Yes, the features are all here.
Is the article generally well-written? Y Oh yes. As in previous reviews, I don't find there's much to comment on here. You have a good editorial writing style, so nothing that would really affect the GAN.
Is the article broad enough in its coverage? Y Yes, this covers all the expected aspects of the subject matter.
- In your research on Jaguar sourcing, have you come across sales charts or data? I have no frame of reference for whether this was reliably reported in the literature, compared to say, later generation console charts and NPD sales charts for PC games being quite easy to find for major titles.
- The only source that i've come across regarding Jaguar game sales is this linked source for the earlier Jaguar releases. Regarding later Jaguar games, especially this one being one of the last first-part releases, i did not find anything relevant unfortunately. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources cited verify the text in the article? Again, this is the more tricky aspect of the review, so keeping this pending.
Are media and links properly attributed and do not have copyright issues? Y No issues here. The juxtaposition of multiple gameplay screenshots properly attributed to the publisher seems warranted given the comparisons and dissimilarities between gameplay modes, and Minter's photograph appears to have a correct license.
Any other personal opinions or miscellaneous feedback that may or may not be relevant to the nomination?
- Headline
- ...decided releasing -> decided to release' may work better.
- Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- May want to specify the platform and date of the original Defender.
- Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Gameplay
- The section briefly describes how Plus mode differs from Classic, but I am still a little confused. Am I correct that Plus is largely the same as Classic but with modernised visuals and minor gameplay additions, in contrast to 2000 which overhauls and builds upon the design entirely? This could be made slightly clearer. Also whilst the 2000 additions are described in detail, it isn't clear whether the "new weapons, helper droids, enemy motherships, and warp cubes" are major additions worth description or not; the reference to the mechanics of Stargate is unhelpful for someone not familiar to the game.
- Done -- I did some minor changes to the gameplay section based on your comments. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Some ideas to improve the context:
- Were the 2000 remakes planned to be serialized by Atari prior to release or retrospectively so after Defender 2000?
- Done -- I clarified that the 2000 series started following the release of Tempest 2000. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Do the sources provide reasons for Atari's executive decisions in this section: i.e. to move to the Jaguar CD and then return to cartridge?
- After double-checking the Video Games issue where that statement came from (https://archive.org/details/video-games-de-1995-09/page/45/mode/1up), i think it all came down to financial reasons (if i understood correctly after reading it once again, cartridge sales brought more money than CD) -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Who does own the rights to the game if neither Atari nor Minter?
- None of the sources explicitly says who owns the rights but it could be Warner Bros., since they acquired Midway Games (who in turn obtained the IPs developed by Williams and Atari Games including Defender) -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Some terms worth explaining or wikilinking that may not be obvious to a casual reader:
- Done -- i wikilinked the term. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- i wikilinked the term. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- May want to add a little more context to specify what Llamasoft: The Jeff Minter Story is: a Digital Eclipse interactive compilation of Minter's work.
- Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Some edits:
- decided joining the company -> decided to join the company
- Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- the humans were made -> the humans were animated may work best
- Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reception
- Recommend limiting the template to ten items. This is typically the WP:VG/RS ones with WP:SIGCOV ones although this is most of them I imagine. I'd focus on keeping the ones that are confirmed reliable.
- Ideally a thematic approach to this section is much better and outlined under the WP:VG/MOS. This section reads as a linear summary of each review which lacks structure and creates confusion as the assessments constantly dart back and forth between modes. Putting assessments of the modes in separate paragraphs makes it much easier and more informative.
- Done -- I divided the reception paragraph into each for the three modes. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes Andy Slaven a reliable authority? I'm not sure if I can find much on his background. He is cited far and wide on the site but it seems that this is only because he self-published an enormous enthusiast compendium with an wide amount of personal opinions on classic games. Trafford Publishing seems to be a self-publishing outlet.
- I've used Andy Slaven's Video Game Bible for the retrospective sub-area of the reception section and in cases the game needs more reviews or retrospective outlook to establish its notability if there are no more magazine reviews left to be found but with the sheer amount of reviews that there are in reception section of Defender 2000, i think it's fine to remove it here. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vrxces:OK, i managed to get around all of your inquiries so, let me know if there's anything else left to be done... Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I think that's it, a spot check on the sources seems to capture quotes and facts correctly. Thanks again. Appreciate any feedback on the review process in terms of whether there are things I've done well or could do better, or could better document. I'm mindful I'm somewhere in between the people that do very comprehensive analysis of the article as a whole, the people that just provide a list of nitpicks of tangential relevance to GAN, and the people that give it a once-over and say it's okay. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, the features are all here. 
Again, this is the more tricky aspect of the review, so keeping this pending.