Talk:Super Robin Hood

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the developers' mother recorded the voice of Maid Marian in Super Robin Hood?

• Source: "Computer game – starring our mum". Trowbridge Star. Trowbridge, Wiltshire, England, United Kingdom. 26 February 1987

• • ALT1: ... that Super Robin Hood was the start of a regular partnership between the Oliver twins and Codemasters? Source: Wilkins, Chris; Kean, Roger (2016). "Part Two: Dizzy with Darlings". Let’s Go Dizzy (1 ed.). Kenilworth, Warwickshire, England, United Kingdom: Fusion Retro Books. pp. 54–59. ISBN 9780993131585.
  • ALT2: ... that the developers shared a single computer everyday for a month to program Super Robin Hood? Source: Wilkins, Chris; Kean, Roger (2016). "Part Two: Dizzy with Darlings". Let’s Go Dizzy (1 ed.). Kenilworth, Warwickshire, England, United Kingdom: Fusion Retro Books. pp. 54–59. ISBN 9780993131585.
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: The print sources be found online at the developers' website.

The Trowbridge Star article is about halfway down the Super Robin Hood page in the "What the press said" section: https://www.olivertwins.com/superrobinhood

A link to PDF and online versions of "Let's Go Dizzy: The Story of the Oliver Twins" book is near the bottom of the Our Story page: https://www.olivertwins.com/our-story

5x expanded by Guyinblack25 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: AGF on offline source for ALT0, which I find to be slightly more interesting than ALT2 (which could be flipped to read more smoothly, see below). ALT1 isn't particularly interesting, speaking as someone with little familiarity with video games of this era. SounderBruce 05:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• A variant of ALT2 that flows better: ... that the developers of Super Robin Hood shared a single computer everyday to program the game in shifts? SounderBruce 05:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

GA review

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

Nominator: Guyinblack25 (talk · contribs) 23:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: PresN (talk · contribs) 15:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewing this for GA! I review by listing issues as I read through the article, rather than using a template; I'll fix minor grammar issues myself.

• Are the "floors" different levels, or is it a single continuous path? Looks like the latter according to Development, but that should be clarified in Gameplay. Also, is it scrolling or flip-screens, and given the year, if it's scrolling is it 2D scrolling or just horizontal?
• The gameplay paragraph should probably be split into two, especially if you add more text for the above point.
• The first paragraph of Development and release is very long, and should be split in two, either before or after the "Through the United Kingdom’s Enterprise Allowance Scheme" sentence.
• "Although they began developing for the console late into the system's lifecycle, the brothers continued NES development because of the newfound success" - confusing, newfound success with what? This is 5 years after SRH came out, and the article hasn't yet said what they've done since 1987.
• "...based on their experience coding Fantastic Dizzy.[19] As their life circumstances had changed, however..." - I feel like we're missing some context, or going out of order. Article should introduce when they made Fantastic Dizzy (the prior year?), and "life circumstances had changed" is pretty vague
• The paragraph then jumps back to motivation for porting SRH to the NES, which is a bit of whiplash
• It's fine at the GA level, and maybe it's just personal preference, but most of the paragraph starting with "The NES remake uses a 64kB ROM cartridge" feels overdetailed on their precise development setup.
• The first two paragraphs of "Nintendo Entertainment System remake" are again rather long; a good general rule for readability is to keep paragraphs at roughly 4-7 sentences, so at 10/11 sentences these start to drag.
• "and divided the world into nine different floors" - I am again confused about how these floors work - I thought it was already divided into floors?
• Looks like "issues with Nintendo" is how the twins phrased it; I'm assuming we don't know any more details?
• "Video game magazines praised the value of the game as a budget title. While reviewers had a mixed response to the gameplay, the audiovisuals were a frequent point of praise." Having a floating, uncited, separate "thesis" sentence (or two, in this case) is generally discouraged. I'd recommend dropping these two, and starting the next paragraph with "Video game magazines such as Amstrad Action praised the value of the game as a budget title but had a mixed response to the gameplay." The third paragraph already has an intro sentence.
• Not a GA-level concern, but each reception section reads like a series of each reviewer's opinion on gameplay or aesthetics, rather than merging similar thoughts together to let it flow better. (see MOS:VGREC)
• Recommend splitting the gameplay paragraph in two for length, though I don't see a great breakpoint
• I'm not sure that "Reactions to the game's presentation were overall positive" is really accurate, given that you then list Guttery and Ben as disliking the graphics. Maybe "Reactions to the game's presentation were generally positive, though with some dissenting opinions" or something like that?
• No source issues found

This is a very solid article - it was nice to read and my concerns above are pretty minor overall. Also nice to see you around here, it's been a long time! --PresN 15:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@PresN: Thanks for the feedback. I've made edits to address some of the concerns you brought up. There are some that I'm not sure how best to proceed though.

• Regarding the game world, it's kinda like multiple branching paths that allow for open exploration. I'm not sure how to clarify this though. If it helps, the developers posted maps of both version of the game on their website.
  • At the bottom of the Super Robin Hood page - here's a direct link to the PDF if that's easier
  • Bottom of the Robin Hood: Legend Quest page - here's the PDF link
    • Maybe change "The medieval castle, which is populated with enemies like archers and spiders, has several floors with moving platforms and ladders." to something like "The medieval castle consists of a large, labyrinthine space visually divided into several floors. It is populated with enemies like archers and spiders, and has moving platforms and ladders."
• Regarding the flip screen, only the Amstrad and Spectrum releases of Super Robin Hood use that. The rest have scrolling levels. I guess since the original version was the Amstrad, the gameplay section should reflect that. How does adding this sound?

  The player views a single screen of the castle and navigates the floors via flip-screening.

• Maybe "The player navigates the castle via flip-screening, viewing a fixed screen-sized area at a time. In the later re-release, this was changed to a side-scrolling view of each floor." That second sentence could also get split off to be with the other "In the later re-release" bit as well.

• Details about the "issues with Nintendo" felt like a tangent. It was mainly because Camerica released the Game Genie, which Nintendo sued over. Also, because it was releasing games without the Nintendo seal of approval. Maybe this could work as a foot note?

• Yeah, I think a footnote, it clears up the vagueness but I agree that it's a tangent.

• Regarding the "Staff" listed as the author, since it's a preference I add it in to be explicit and ensure the citations have uniform layouts. When no author is listed, the date's position changes. Not a big deal though.

• Feel free to revert me if you want.

Looking forward to finishing up the article. And it is good to see you as well! (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC))

Replied inline. --PresN 23:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I believe all the issues have been addressed. The only other idea I have to break up the blocks of text would be to take the last two paragraphs in the original and remake development sections to form a "Release" section. I don't know if that gains much, if anything though. Please let me know if there are any other issues. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC))

I think we're good to go! --PresN 02:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)