Talk:Flight Unlimited II

Neutrality of article

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)

Reference material

I have found the following material that could be used to write this article:

Reviews

• PC Zone
• PC Gamer US
• PC Gamer UK
• Computer Gaming World
• Computer Games Magazine
• The Washington Post
• Wisconsin State Journal
• Computer Shopper
• Hartford Courant
• The Independent
• The Advocate
• LA Times
• Orlando Sentinel
• https://archive.org/stream/boot-magazine-issue20-pc-notebook-autopsy-apr-1998/Boot%20Magazine%20-%20Issue%20020%20-%20PC%20Notebook%20Autopsy%20-%20Apr%201998#page/n79/mode/2up
• https://web.archive.org/web/19990908031037/http://games.net:80/pcgames/articles/0,1034,2185,00.html?CHANNEL=pcgames&AD_SECTION=fly

Previews and other material

• https://archive.org/details/pcgamer199812/page/n99
• GameSpot
• Smith, Peter (1997). "Flight Unlimited II". Computer Games Magazine. Archived from the original on July 5, 2003. Retrieved June 14, 2011.
• Atkin, Denny. "Flight Unlimited 2". Computer Gaming World. Archived from the original on April 16, 1998. Retrieved June 14, 2011.
• Game-Over news post
• Pagliarulo, Emil. "Flight Unlimited 2". Adrenaline Vault. Archived from the original on June 26, 1997. Retrieved June 15, 2011.
• Washington Post comment
• Business Wire article
• Sales information
• Flight Unlimited II manual
• 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. ISBN 0761537082.
• Announcement
• Publishing
• Publishing 2
• Big CNET Gamecenter feature
• https://web.archive.org/web/19961220165136/http://www.next-generation.com:80/specials/121296.shtml
• https://web.archive.org/web/19970605163706/http://www.next-generation.com:80/news/051597g.chtml
• https://web.archive.org/web/19970605163149/http://www.next-generation.com:80/previews2/pc/flight2.chtml
• https://web.archive.org/web/19970606033135/http://www.next-generation.com:80/news/012897e.chtml
• Flynn, James (November 1997). "The Latest On... Flight Unlimited II". PC Gamer UK (49): 70, 71. - [1], [2]
• https://archive.org/details/MicromanaTerceraEpocaSpanishIssue36/page/n33

I'll add more as I find it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flight Unlimited II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 02:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: I've read over the article once, and can see this passing easily. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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 Manguard Wha? 02:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

See what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. I understand your point regarding GR. PROMOTED! Remember that newly promoted GAs now qualify for DYK. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.224 (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)