This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Comments such as "The game is reputedly one of if not the first to allow players to take off from and land on water with a seaplane." Among others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWizardOfAhz (talk • contribs) 23:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saunders, Michael (December 15, 1997). "Flights of Fancy for Virtual Pilots". The Boston Globe. LIVING; Pg. C.8.
Von Hoffman, Constantine (July 22, 1997). "The Small Business Page; Software Company Plays Games Against Competition". Boston Herald. BUSINESS; Pg. 24.
Takahashi, Dean (April 23, 2002). Opening the Xbox: Inside Microsoft's Plan to Unleash an Entertainment Revolution. Prima Lifestyle. ISBN0761537082.
Starting comments: I've read over the article once, and can see this passing easily. Sven ManguardWha? 02:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. Well written:
a. prose/copyright: Needs work
Please mention the game engine in the lead. I've only become aware of it recently myself, but apparently that's something that's desired.
Took steps to address this.
b. MoS compliance: Acceptable
2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable
a. provides references: Acceptable
I am, of course, assuming good faith towards the sources that are not accessible online.
b. proper citation use: Acceptable
In the future, please provide links for press releases. Even if they're not at their original locations, they are generally archived. Any source that you can access online, even if that's not how you actually accessed it, should still be given a link, as that fits with our philosophy on verifiability.
c. no original research: Acceptable
3. Broad in coverage:
a. covers main aspects: Needs work
I would like for you to work the aggregate score in, as that seems to be a standard for video game articles. There isn't one at Metacritic, but there is one at GameRankings. It should be addressed both in the prose and in the side table.
I purposefully left this out, as GameRankings scores for pre-2000s games tend to be extremely limited. In this case, the aggregate score is based on only four reviews. If you still think it's relevant, I'll include it.
b. focused/on topic: Acceptable
4. Neutral: Section acceptable
5. Stable: Section acceptable
6. Image use: Section acceptable
a. license/tagging correct: Acceptable
b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable
I am not sure that the image of the plane in flight is terribly useful, as it's not particularly informative as far as screenshots go. That being said, I'm not into games in this genre, so I wouldn't have any suggestions for a replacement. For the moment, I suppose it might as well stay in.
Replaced.
7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:
a. images that should have alt texts have them: Needs work
Please? I won't fail this if you fix everything else and leave this, but it is still something that I like to see (and it is mandatory when you get to FAC level).
Done.
b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable
Comments after the initial review: Solid. Needs changes in 1a and 3a, should have changes in 7a, and might need changes per 2b, but this should get promoted easily enough. Sven ManguardWha? 02:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I understand your point regarding GR. PROMOTED! Remember that newly promoted GAs now qualify for DYK. Sven ManguardWha? 05:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]