# Talk:The King of Fighters '99

Found this: Game Informer review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it really has windows version? Or someone confuses console emulator with native version...? 87.79.167.201 (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it may have only been released in places like Japan or Korea. Though both Japanese and English language versions exist.
I'll try to add info if I find a reliable enough source. Theclaw1 (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The King of Fighters '99/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 22:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: TeenAngels1234 (talk · contribs) 22:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this. Stay tuned.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the extreme delay.

"he trying to spread new content". Is trying the best consecutio temporum here? Maybe tried is better? I'm just asking, since English technically is not my first language.
Reworded
"The characters were decided within the team". What do you mean with this?
Done
"With the Strikes, SNK aimed to give the player idea for new combos". As the first point: is ideas better?
Reworded
"He thought that there will be some things that will come up, but he was still worried". Again, isn't a better consecutio temporum for the part in italics?
Done
"Ono still had worries about how the game would be received". Quite trivial. Every artist has worries about how their art will be received, I guess.
Done
I would suggest to remove the heavy use of passive voice for Release. X published, X released, X wrote, are better than X was published, X was released, and so on.
Done.
@Tintor2:That's all for now. The lead, the plot/characters and the gameplay sections look good to me. I only need to read Reception.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
@TeenAngels1234: Thanks for the notes. Revised everything.Tintor2 (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay. I read again the article and I have just some doubts:

"...also called "KOF '99"". Why the ""?
Removed
"..mysterious yet threatening organization known only as NESTS". Yet and only sound superflous.
Revised
" King joins forces with Blue Mary (formerly a member of the "'97 Special Team") to form the new Women Fighters Team with Kasumi Todoh (last seen in KOF '96) and Li Xiangfei (from Real Bout Fatal Fury 2: The Newcomers)". Can you remove the parentheses and rewrite this in a more fluent way?
Revised
"The same issue would happe in the third story arc where Kyo and Iori". Is happe a typo, right? Also, I would add a comma after arc.
Revised
"...regarding Kyo Kusanagi's design was one.." Maybe "as one" is better?
Revised
"Both Uvejuegos stated". Why both?
Revised
" Gaming Age felt the graphic update was more noticeable than the Uvejuegos did but was critical of Krizalid". Can you rewrite this? I can't understand that "than the Uvejuegos did".
Done.
@Tintor2: That's all.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@TeenAngels1234: Revised everything. Thanks for the review.Tintor2 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Okay, so. The editor briefly fixed all the doubts. Passing.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)