Talk:Amstrad GX4000

Pictures

I wanted to say that the new console photo is a huge improvement over the older one. It would also be nice if someone has photo's of the controller's, or other peripheralls to add them to the peripheralls section and bring it into line with the entries for other consoles such as the Master System, and NES (that section also needs to be improved with more written content on what products were available, I'm not knowledgeable enough on the topic to do it myself unfortunately) Jesus.arnold (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amstrad GX4000/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 11:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Comments to follow shortly. Please consider reviewing another nomination at WP:GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Images and source spotcheck

All images suitably licensed and captioned. Several sources spotchecked; all good. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

General comments

• What is the reliability of this source, seemingly the citation for the table in "Game library"?

• Surprised this was left in. Removed. Jaguar (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• The "Reception" section would be better suited as a subsection of "History", otherwise it feels disconnected from the narrative of its launch, especially the sentences on press support and Malcolm Miller's comments.

• Although console articles follow the same format, in this case I would agree. I've moved it into a subsection under 'launch'. Jaguar (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• "Development was based heavily on Amstrad's existing CPC Plus home computer range, sharing much of the same hardware architecture." its grammatically incorrect, it needs to be "with which it shared" or similar.

• Amended. Jaguar (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Can Burnin' Rubber really be said to have been the best-selling game in the infobox if it just came as part of the console bundle? That seems deceptive.

• I wouldn't say listing the best-selling title as a pack-in is deceptive per se, seeing as most console articles such as Wii follow suit. I've removed the "pack in" label from the infobox, but I think it's important to keep it in there. Jaguar (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Otherwise, all good, nice work. Putting this on hold for the few changes to be actioned. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, AirshipJungleman29! Writing this article was a quick blast, quite fun actually. I doubt I'd take it to FAC, but given the console's obscurity it's as pretty much comprehensive as can be. Jaguar (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.