Talk:Duke Nukem Forever/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 12:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll take this. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think this needs a full review—it's missing basic stuff: a lede that reflects the text, a sourced gameplay section, proper reliable sources instead of forum links and random websites. I suggest that the nominator take a look at the links in the good article criteria. – czar 14:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Czar has basically summarized what I wanted to say. The entire gameplay section being unsourced, as well as the presence of two unsourced paragraphs in the development and marketing section are not really acceptable for a good article nomination. Even though there is a page called Development of Duke Nukem Forever, it does not mean that the development section of this page can be this short. It also does not fully explain the game's long development. How the game was designed is also important, even though it ended up to become a terrible game. Reception section uses too many quotes, and the article has quite many one-sentence paragraphs, which are discouraged. The article is not supported by reliable sources, (which was already mentioned by Czar), and the citations are inconsistently formatted. Some information are written in a confusing way (such as the "First Access Club") as well. Normally I would not quick-fail others if the nominator has worked on the article. Seeing it as a "drive-by" nomination, I am not convinced that the article would get improved in a short period of time. I am very sorry to say that I am going to quick-fail this article this time. You can put the article to peer review, and I may be able to give you some more comments that are more in-depth. Feel free to nominate the article again after you have fixed all the issues, and I will be happy to review it again.
AdrianGamer (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice and the quick review, guys. It seemed like a well-written article to me at the time, but obviously I didn't look carefully enough. I'll definitely look harder the next time I try to do something like this. I don't have much time at the moment, so it might take a while for me to fix everything. No hard feelings :) Daß Wölf (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)