Jump to content

Talk:Revolution Software: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
7arazred (talk | contribs)
496 edits
No edit summary
7arazred (talk | contribs)
496 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Revolution Software}}
{{WikiProject Revolution Software|class=GA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Video games|class=Start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Video games|class=Start|importance=mid}}
{{ArticleHistory | action1 = GAN | action1date = 22:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC) | action1link = Talk:Revolution Software/GA1 | action1result = failed | action1oldid = 454296036 | action2 = GAN | action2date = 11:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | action2link = Talk:Revolution Software/GA2 | action2result = failed | action2oldid = 455832002 | currentstatus = FGAN | itndate = | dykdate = | dykentry = | topic = Engineering and Technology | small = }}
{{ArticleHistory | action1 = GAN | action1date = 22:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC) | action1link = Talk:Revolution Software/GA1 | action1result = failed | action1oldid = 454296036 | action2 = GAN | action2date = 11:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | action2link = Talk:Revolution Software/GA2 | action2result = failed | action2oldid = 455832002 | currentstatus = FGAN | itndate = | dykdate = | dykentry = | topic = Engineering and Technology | small = }}

Revision as of 10:28, 30 October 2011

Template:WikiProject Revolution Software

WikiProject iconVideo games Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Former good article nomineeRevolution Software was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 6, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
October 16, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Importance

This Article should be Highly Important, because Revolution Software made one of the most successful Adventure Classics of All Time! Plus - it was found by a Legendof the Gaming Industry: Charles Cecil! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7arazred (talk • contribs) 12:42, 17 September 2011

Per the Importance scale for WikiProject Video games, companies are ranked Top-importance (article forms the basis of all information) if they are highly influential companies, particularly the major Japanese, American, and European companies involved in video game production, e.g. Blizzard Entertainment, Capcom, Nintendo; they are ranked High-importance (article covers a general area of knowledge) if they are top developers and publishers, e.g. Epic Games, Neversoft; they are ranked Mid-importance (article fills in general knowledge of specialized topics) if they are most other well-known companies in the industry, e.g. IGN, Gamestop, Naughty Dog; and Low-importance otherwise. Personally I'm reluctant to go even as high as Mid-importance, because no evidence has been provided of this company being well-known, so I think that Low-importance is justified. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have added many References, because there weren't enough of them. :D --7arazred (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Revolution Software/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 21:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: One found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: None found. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The lead does not adequately summarise the article, see WP:LEAD
    There is an undue use of promotional and POV language.
    The is a mixture of inline hyperlinks and citations.
    The prose is not very good, not "reasonably well written".
    Not well organised, information needs to be presented logically. Please read WP:MoS and subpages.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    What makes GameFAQs and Revfans reliable sources?
    Most of the sources are WP:Primary sources. This needs good third party sources.
    Wikipedia can not be used as a source.
    There is no sourcing for game releases in the Games section.
    Sources used for citations are also present in the external links section which is not permitted, see WP:EL
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    No mention of sales figures; no real indication of whether this company meets the WP:CORP guidelines.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Appears overly promotional
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    stable
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The specific source of the image needs to be provided.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Shoddily put together, please read the good article criteria and make sure that this article meetrs them before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Revolution Software/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 7arazred (talk · contribs) 21:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The lead adequately summarises the article, see WP:LEAD
    The prose good, it is "reasonably well written".
    It's well organised, information is presented logically. Please read WP:MoS and subpages.
  2. It is accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    stable

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Shoddily put together, please read the good article criteria and make sure that this article meetrs them before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This artcile has not been reviewed. 7arazred simply copied and pasted Talk:Revolution Software/GA1 altering the failure points to passes. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the above just for the record. Apparently nominated by Bsbass, though I cannot see how this is any short of socking given 7arazred created this page 10 min later. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3rd GA nomination quick-failed

I am removing the current GAN on this, as none of the concerns from the previous GANs have been addressed. Please stop re-nominating this article for GAN as multiple reviewers have already shown how this fails by a mile. Consider this a quick-fail on the nomination. –MuZemike 21:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revolution_Software&oldid=458105155"