# Talk:The Simpsons: Bart's House of Weirdness

[1] - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a blog post by a 1UP user. I don't think that's reliable. Theleftorium (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Bob Mackey is a 1UP.com editor. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems you're right. Thanks! :) Theleftorium (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this game really a side-scroller? That article says it is ("it's a side-scrolling platformer"), but then in the next sentence it contradicts that by saying ("the levels of HoW are broken up into separate screens--sort of like the old 2-D Prince of Persia games"). So has anyone played this game or seen video to confirm this? --Mika1h (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It's like this: File:Prince of Persia (1989 video game) IBM PC Version gameplay.gif. Isn't that side-scrolling? Theleftorium (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
No, the level isn't scrolling. This would be a typical side-scroller: File:Wonder_boy_platform.gif. --Mika1h (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I see. Is there a name for the way this game works? Theleftorium (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Platform game#Single screen movement --Mika1h (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Great! I've updated the article. :) Theleftorium (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bart's House of Weirdness/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Well, this sounds like a terrible game, but I'll review it :)
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
See below.
B. MoS compliance: 
See below.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Some may moan about the blog, but I'm happy with it. You've made the best of a limited bunch, and clearly put some effort into finding sources. There will be more out there but they'll be bloody difficult to find.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
To be honest, you've done well to cover it so well considering the rather scanty sources you have available.
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Good rationales.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Carefully chosen, well used.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

"The plot is the following:" Rephrase?
"from the home. Bart eventually" What does he do in the middle? You've already mentioned he travels around the town, perhaps mention that then say he eventually winds up in Krustyland?
"The game has a total of six levels." Plus the bonus level to save Krusty, presumably?
"it "deserves a little more coverage, if only to acknowledge its existence"." Good work :P
"[to the left]" Avoid self references? I can see what you're doing here, but...
"the NES."" I've been criticised before for leaving links in quotes like that.
"publication UGO Networks comments" UGO Networks would be the company, not the publication, and a publication can't really "comment"- how about something like "Writers for UGO Networks said that"
"among other things" amongst?
All done (I think). Thanks so much for the review! Theleftorium (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Promoted, good job. J Milburn (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Good work! :) BOZ (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)