# Talk:And Yet It Moves

A picture needs to be inserted in the top right along with information about release time, developer etc. This is called Infobox VG, see for instance Diablo II source code. I can't figure out how to upload a picture.

This section may need a clean-up since I just copied it from the Steam page.
Deleet (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is this not linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.67.122 (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 

It's linked in the lead. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I assessed this article as per request and found it to meet the c-class critera. My only suggestion would be that in the gameplay section, each gameply dynamic be decribed seperately, without using spicific exameples from the game. 16bitz

This review is transcluded from Talk:And Yet It Moves/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bridies (talk · contribs) 06:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Commencing review, comments shall follow within the next day or two. bridies (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Main comments

1. I've done a copy edit and the prose is fine. The predominance of the passive voice in the development is just a tad odd, but not too big an issue.
2. One assumes the paragraphs with no citations in the gameplay section are either from the primary source or collated generally from the references, so that's ok, but:
The near final version of the game was submitted to Nintendo's Quality Assurance team in May 2010 to inspect and find bugs. The game was released on WiiWare in North America on August 23 and in Europe on August 27. specific dates like these need a citation.
As do sales: "More than 370,000 units of the game were sold as part of the Humble Indie Bundle 3."
And some sourcing issues in the reception section:

The Popzara review needs removed. We've no consensus for this publication as reliable and they don't have any authority I believe. Looking into the site and its publisher it appears borderline at best, which might be just about be OK for a review in a better-than-nothing scenario; but including a "superlative" review from such a site in a GA, no.
Ditto the Destructoid review. We have some past discussion on Destructoid (see above link) and the consensus is that as a blog it lacks the required editorial oversight and thus the authors must be recognised experts themselves if we are to cite them. I looked into Matthew Razak and he writes for another unreliable (for our purposes) site and a film site. So a paid-per-hit blogger calling the game a "masterpiece" and such isn't admissible here.
Suggest possibly more detail from the reliable sources already here, or looking for more. If GameSpot, IGN and 1UP reviewed it I don't see why others might not.
3. Gameplay section is fine; development section would appear to be comprehensive; reception section is short-and-sweet, appropriate for an indie game
4. Neutral, aside from the possibly OTT reviews
6. Stable
7. Images are fine, FURs are adequate.
Will check some content against the sources later. bridies (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Update non-RS reviews removed and replaced with the good-enough Nintendo Life. Have checked some statements against the sources and all is fine. I note no cites for the release dates but I wouldn't consider this to be a controversial issue in such a recent game. Will Pass. bridies (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I Support A-Class. --JDC808 ♫ 05:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I support, and good enough for FA I think.--Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea we already had an A-class article on this game when I got the free use assets packed in with other Broken Rules assets—I actually assumed we had no article on it at all! Nice work  czar ♔ 05:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on And Yet It Moves. 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/20120107135328/http://gamerlimit.com/2009/05/and-yet-it-moves-developer-interview/ to http://gamerlimit.com/2009/05/and-yet-it-moves-developer-interview/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 03:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)