Talk:Demon Attack

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 21:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'll get a review posted within the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas I've written a review and posted it below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Well-written

I did some copyediting on the article as I went through, and there were a lot of things that needed fixing. A lot of sentences flowed in a way that didn't really make sense, there were some grammar issues, there were some duplicate links, and there were a lot of double spaces between words. I also swapped out some of the instances of "stated" with "said", because overusing "stated" can make text stiff. I suggest that you review the changes I made here so you know what to watch out for in the future. It's good to copyedit articles before nominating them, either by doing it yourself or asking someone else to take a look (like at WP:GOCE) if copyediting isn't your thing.

Fair. I'll keep that in mind for future content. Going through your edits, I don't think anything is too off. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

General:

• All of the information about Phoenix is spread out and hard to follow. The first few times it's mentioned, it's not clear what it has to do with Demon Attack. Is there a way to group the Phoenix comparisons and resulting legal issues together as their own section?

Not sure. I think I can combine the bits about the addition of it and the lawsuit to the release section as I feel that can be combined there. Might leave the reception part in as I feel that's a different beast of critics figuring out which they may think is the better work. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

• programmed by Rob Fulop – Did he create the game too, or was he just the programmer?

As far as I've read, he is the sole creator. I think I chose the word "programmer" in the lead because he specifically made the Atari 2600 version (which is the original). While others, (such as the Intellivision one, which is definitely notable (unique boss/lawsuit/critical comparisons/etc.) were not made by Fulop. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• he was not properly reimbursed for his work on a port of Space Invaders – The body doesn't say he felt improperly reimbursed for the Space Invaders port, just that he thought he did well with the different projects he worked on.

I'm basically referring to the "turkey dinner" bonus he got for Space Invaders at the end of the year, is that not specific? I can re-phrase if you think it's not appropriate. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Right now the body says He said that he expected a strong Christmas bonus from Atari based on how well his games had done commercially. The lead mentions Space Invaders, but the body doesn't. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarified. Specifically the issue was Space Invaders. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Atari had the exclusive rights to produce Phoenix for home consoles – This seems like an out-of-place fact when first reading it. It should start by explaining that Atari felt the ship was reminiscent of one in Phoenix.

Tried to clarify this a bit better. It's hard to go into this too much without just over doing it, but I tried to re-write this part in the lead.

Gameplay:

• a planetary surface in space – This should be clarified, because these are opposites.

Tried to clean this up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Do not use "you" in Wikipedia articles. I fixed this, but it's definitely something that should have been removed before the article was nominated.

Noted. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• to avoid enemies from the bottom of the screen – The enemies are coming from the bottom of the screen?

• Re-phrased. Players is at the bottom of the screen, not the enemies. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• to guide the laser after they are shot – Grammar.

• Tried to re-phrase. Not sure what specifically is needed here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• The last paragraph doesn't say "boss fight", which is the most important detail. It gets close to describing the situation in universe, which should be avoided.

Tried toning that down a bit, and clarified a bit better I hope. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Development:

• It says that he worked on Atari 2600 games, but then in the next sentence it says he worked on Atari 2600 and on the Atari 400/800.

Combined with next sentence into one statement to simplify it. He definitely worked on both. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• the Atari 2600 permitted smooth and easy movement across the screen horizontally & as the system allowed for that in an easier way – The article doesn't explain this. Is it because of the software they use?

It's mostly just how the systems function to display material. It's not like today's computers, as the Atari 2600 and Intellvision are made at different times with different abilities in mind. I don't know the technical details, but I tried to clarify it a bit in the sentence. The article in question doesn't go into specifics either I'm afraid. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• it was Becker's while the rest was his own – I don't understand what this is saying.

Tried to clarify. Basically "if any graphics in the game look good, it's because they were designed by Becker. I [Kato] designed the rest of them.]. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Release:

• I made some copyedits, but no major issues.

Reception:

• as being different looking and "vibrantly colorful", respectively – Is "different looking" an exact quote? Right now it's strange to have one that's an exact quote and one that's not.

Good point. Dug up the source and replaced it with a better word that's a bit more clarifying that they mean something positive. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Kunkel and Katz don't really need to be a full quote, since they're talking about games in general instead of Demon Attack specifically. It might be simpler to say something like "Bill Kunkel and Arnie Katz wrote in Video that they considered Demon Attack to be the best among recent VCS programs of the time".

Fair. I've re-phrased this to specifically note they are referring to the graphics. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yarnot noted that – Be careful with "noted". It makes it sound like we're agreeing with them. Better to just use "said" unless they're noting an obvious fact.

Done. I think I squeeze these in sometimes as I feel i've written "said" too many times. Wasn't aware that noted had that connotation, but all is good. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• with earlier waves then being repeated – I don't understand this.

Tried to re-phrase here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Legacy:

• Avoid paragraphs that are only one sentence long.

I've moved it up. I was hoping some information about this would drop, but I don't think any news has dropped on it as the Amico seems pretty dead on arrival. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

• Press releases like those at PR Newswire generally aren't reliable. I won't say it can't be used like this, but if it's possible to replace, I'd recommend replacing it.

Not trying to call you on this, but is there a discussion or rule that suggests this? I'd imagine a press release is where more news sources would be picking up this information. The only peep i've heard about this was from Polygon, but it just says that Demon Attack would be available at launch, only the press release state it would be a remake. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's covered at WP:PRSOURCE. Press releases and the news sources that recycle them are questionable sources. WP:PRNEWSWIRE is listed as unreliable at WP:RS/P. If it's the only source for the announcement and other sources haven't picked it up, then it's probably not worth including. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I think WP:PRSOURCE is mostly for if you are trying to establish notability or some subjective opinion. In this case it's just announcing a release was, well, announced which I feel is probably a good source to use for such content? As WP:NIS says right above it that you can use them, just don't use them for opinions or other junk. I feel it is valid, but am happy to remove it if is too vague. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Just a suggestion, but you might consider condensing both instances of Cassidy (2002) into a single source and use page numbers p.1 and p.2 to distinguish them.

Normally I would, but page numbers don't quite work the same on older internet articles like this. If the user clicks the link expecting to find the cited material, they wouldn't find the text there. So I don't really like to do that. I'd like to leave it as it is if that is okay. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Another suggestion, if these print sources are legally accessible online somewhere, it's helpful to add links. This can be difficult sometimes, but I managed to find one and added it.

I've tried to add all the ones I think are acceptably cited. I know there are magazines and books etc., but I'm not sure what legal grey area is, so i've left them blank for now. Last thing I want is the material to get so much attention to have them removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Spot checks:

• Cassidy (2002) p.1 – This says it's in the hall of fame, but did Cassidy personally put it in the Hall of Fame himself? The current source doesn't indicate this.

Fair. I've re-phrased this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Harris (2003) – This says it was removed from the collection, not included in it.

I've double-checked with the manual for the PS2 version and have played it myself and can confirm that Demon Attack is on the PS2 version. when the article says it has been removed from the PS2 version, they are saying that in the context that the Game Boy Advance version (which they are reviewing) had it, and it is no longer on this version of the game. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Update One on One (1983) – This doesn't support "three page documents". I assume it's in the other citation here? When feasible, it's sometimes helpful to split up the citations so it's clear what part supports what.

It is in the other citation. I don't think it really needs to be split up here as they are all discussing the same item.

• House – Good. While AllGame shouldn't usually be used for genre, in this case it's citing the review itself instead of the database info, so it's acceptable. However, the genre shouldn't be cited in the infobox if it can be helped. Instead, it should be mentioned in the gameplay section, and the citation should go there instead.

Fair. I've moved it there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Donovan (2011) – Good.

Broad in its coverage

• Does this game have any more plot or setting information?

Not really. Games of this vintage in the past barely embellished past this, from either the back cover or one or two pages of the manual. On Atari Age, a text version of the manual can be seen here to give you the idea. link. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Was there any promotion for the game?

Yes! A lot of it can be viewed here here. As there is not much information about these games (usually occasional interviews with the developers, rarely with the marketing team, etc.) and Imagic was a new company at the time (I've found information about the cost and promotion of games like Pitfall II, because Pitfall! was such a huge hit, but rarely for any other games of the era unless they were building some sort of hype (E.T., Pac-Man, etc.) I haven't found much outside nostalgic recollection in histories of the game, usually one or two sentences that don't really say much other than they existed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Can more be said about competitive multiplayer gameplay?

Good call. I've added that.

Neutral

No neutrality issues, no disproportionate weight.

Stable

No disputes, and the article is not going to become outdated any time soon.

Illustrated

The use of a non-free gif pushes "minimal use" to its limits. I suggest replacing it with a still image of gameplay. The gameplay is already described in the text, and a still image of the player or enemies firing would demonstrate basically every visual aspect.

The image is being used for more than basic gameplay recognition. Despite this being a popular game of the era, I've had still images in the past that do not really make it clear what is happening in video games of this era due to their limited graphics. Also, when you hear reviewers talk about irregular patterns and graphics, a still image doesn't convey the enemies warping in, how they deteriorate and other elements. Otherwise, the game will look no different than a Space Invaders or Galaga. I've written this up in the image description on the upload and I'd perhaps compromise on making the gif shorter (I just sort of like having it end on a logical note (i.e: end of the first wave of enemies) rather than just cutting off abruptly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a closer look at WP:NFC#Video clips. It says that the rationale for the video must describe why a single image is not sufficient, such as capturing a specific type of motion discussed in depth by sources and limited to less than 10% of the length of the original work or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter. Considering that, I'd say this complies with the non-free use guideline. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay @Thebiguglyalien:, I believe I've addressed everything or at least responded. What is the next step? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, I looked over the changes and replied above if I had any further comments about them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien:, I think i've addressed your follow-up issues. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

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.