Jump to content

Talk:Empire: Total War/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Prose is generally excellent; a few comments below.
    B. MoS compliance:
    See below
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    See below
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    A few reverts in the history, but nothing alarming.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


MOS/Prose

Lead
  • "Empire: Total War received acclaim from reviewers upon release, and is commended as one the foremost strategy titles of recent times." - The second clause is a little non-neutral and probably unnecessary.
Fair enough. — Levi van Tine (tc) 05:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • "However, while the game had been in the planning stages since the release of Rome: Total War, the game was still in early development; no gameplay footage was demonstrated at the convention." - "The game" is redundant, the second instance can probably be changed to simply "it".
  • Can "console" be wikilinked?
  • "Showcased" is used twice in rapid succession. Can one instance be changed (to "demonstrated", perhaps) to avoid redundancy?
  • The "trailer" wikilink leads to a disambiguation page.
  • The Development section has big walls of text in the form of two oversized paragraphs. Can they be broken down?
Reception
  • "The game was reported to have sold nearly double the amount of Rome: Total War and Medieval II: Total War." - Double the amount of the two games combined, or of each?
Fair enough. — Levi van Tine (tc) 05:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For their part, PC Gamer UK enthusiastically proclaimed the game as "one of the most playable, important and accomplished games ever created"." - "For their part" is probably unnecessary.

Sources

  • The entire first paragraph in the Warfare subsection cites no sources.
  • The Warfare section's second paragraph has two references to the same source in succession. The first instance probably isn't necessary.
  • Reference #8 lists no publisher.
  • A few sources have unwikilinked publishers.
Shacknews is the only one, I think. — Levi van Tine (tc) 15:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Sabre (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the inlines in the lead infobox necessary? Is the information provided elsewhere in the article?
  • Is Gamecyte a reliable source?
  • According to its about page, it seems to be a small team of journalists with a little commercial backing. Its gone under in the last month—which has received some coverage in a brief Google search—so if the url goes, it will be necessary to dig up the archive version. No scholarly results, probably a little too small-time for that. I'd say its borderline sufficient for the single use. But if its still an issue it can easily be dropped. -- Sabre (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. — Levi van Tine (tc) 05:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, this is a well-written and well-sourced article. There's no reason it can't be GA-status if the above issues are addressed. The article will be placed on hold for seven days or until all issues are completed, either by changing them or providing justification if the nominator feels it doesn't need to be changed. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Levi van Tine (tc) 08:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed most of them, just a few I'll deal with in a little while. -- Sabre (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think that's everthing! -- Sabre (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. — Levi van Tine (tc) 11:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]