Developed in the UK?

[edit]

This game was developed in Austria, not the UK. Why is it in the games made in UK category then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.54.154.149 (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category

[edit]

Why is this listed as Wii only if the Platforms section also lists PC? WHich one of the two is wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.37.159 (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'tis wii exlusive. also, what nationality is the main character? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.9.232 (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish, IIRC. Geoff B (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cursed Mountain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 21:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna give this a thorough review. Stand by for comments and recommendations. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is well on its way to being a good article, with a few edits and easy fixes.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Written well overall. Some spelling errors and awkward phrasing and formatting that will take a bit of work. See below. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Sources are reliable and formatted properly. But there's a few statements where the sources don't seem to verify what's in the prose, particularly the gameplay section. It doesn't help that there are double (let alone triple) stacks of references,[][][] which are acceptable in small doses, but add clutter and reduce clarity. See below. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    This is an easy pass. Great, proportional coverage. Just to give the readers some hooks, it's worth calling out the studio's background as Rockstar Vienna (noted in your sources), as well as the experience of Bob Bates (also a legend, but glossed over in your sources.) Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Good overall, aside from a few small parts. I wouldn't use the word "gimmick" in an encyclopedic article, as it's a loaded term and potentially misleading. A more neutral fact-based description is always clearer.Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Looks stable and uncontroversial. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Clear and standard fair use rationale. Appropriate size and clear description, in context. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
More detailed notes on the writing and references:

Lead

Gameplay

Synopsis

Development

Release

Reception

We can leave it there for now. In earnest, the article is very well written and these are minor fixes that will get us all the way there, if not very close. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: I've done my best with the feedback you gave. Part of the issue with the story is that it's deliberately kept a bit vague. Found the manual via Koch Media, so I was able to do some work in gameplay. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're doing great. Sometimes less detail is actually more clear. The story section reads a lot better to me. The lingering ambiguity is why Menmo is helpful one second and violent the next -- is it because he's frustrated that the appeasement ritual isn't working? It's alright if the story isn't clear, and maybe this is the best we can do. Other than that, everything else in the story section is excellent now.
  • Sorted, I think.
  • The gameplay section reads better too and each piece is clearly verifiable now. The development section is great too, and it was already close.
  • There's still a few more small tweaks, after re-reading it.
  • There's an awkward sentence in the release section where the word "including" comes up almost back to back.
  • Sorted.
  • Now that you've inverted the opening paragraph of the reception, it would probably be clearer to use the proper noun "Cursed Mountain" first, and a pronoun like "it" or "the game" second. The section otherwise flows really well now.
  • Sorted.
  • Maybe mentioning Rockstar Vienna in the lead would give the lead more of a hook? This is subjective and just wanted you to consider it. The fate of the studio is mentioned, so it helps tell a bit of a story.
  • Getting this done needed some more rewriting.


Categories