Talk:Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 08:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare is a military science fiction war thriller first-person shooter - This was clumsily long.
• Who is the lead developer? That's the most important part. What High Moon and Raven developed should be mentioned in the development section, not the lead.
• There is a lot of information that should be mentioned in the body article instead of the lead, such as Sledgehammer being the co-developer of Modern Warfare 3, Day Zero Edition, and the absence of a Wii U version
• Not well-organized. Basic information should have its own paragraph, then gameplay (which there is no mention) and story (can be mixed together with gameplay), then development/release and at last reception
• Remove citations from the lead for uncontroversial stuff per WP:LEADCITE
• The game was originally titled Call of Duty: Fog of War, - Inaccurate.
• his interactions with Atlas, a private military corporation that sells its services to the highest bidder. - Do not think that "interactions" is the best word to use.
• Many critics praised the visuals, which were called "excellent" by some, the single-player campaign, which some critics saw as the best in the Call of Duty series, the fast, dynamic, and exciting gameplay, and the content-rich multiplayer. - These adjectives should not be mentioned in the lead. Save it later for the reception part.
• I am convinced that the nominator of the article is familiar with the gameplay section of this article. This used to be unsourced, and the new sources only cover a portion of the gameplay but not all of it. There is still a lot of unsourced information and original research in the gameplay section.
• from the Exoskeleton, which can boost, dash, and sky jump - The Exoskeleton cannot skyjump. The player can.
• Call of Duty series that allows the player to choose differing types of conventional weaponry; - This is unsourced as well.
• Totally, 22 points are needed to upgrade all of the Exo upgrade system. - not necessary.
• four players have to survive against endless waves of undead enemies, with an optional story quest, or easter egg, that can be done at any time during a match. - not "done" but "completed". You cannot do an "easter egg"
• and use them to open doors/clear obstacles - use points or use zombies?
• Map pack mentioned in the downloadable content section already.
• Suggest trimming the plot section. Both of them are a bit too long.
• The development section is very weak. As a big release in a year, it should have a lot of interview, feature articles and even, making of article. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
• Advanced Warfare left an impact on Black Ops III. This should be mentioned.[15]
• A Call of Duty massively multiplayer online game was also rumored to be in development - Not rumored. It is Call of Duty Online from Raven.
• A new game in the Call of Duty series was announced to be released in November 2014 - This is a one-sentence paragraph. You should expand it, merge it with other sections or remove it.
• same as James Cameron's upcoming Avatar 2, a first for Call of Duty - "a first for Call of Duty" is not necessary.
• the new three-year Call of Duty development cycle meant that Advanced Warfare - the development cycle come out of nowhere. Normal readers would not know about this.
• Raven's role is not mentioned in this section.
• The reveal section is not really good. I guess a section about trailers is acceptable, but it is not really the main point of the section. It does not mention the most important information: When the game is actually released.
• Day Zero Edition was mentioned twice and the first mention should be removed
• The downloadable content section talking about the Havoc, Ascendance, Supremacy, and Reckoning is not well-written. I suggest using a list format, or simply rephrase it to "Sledgehammer received 4 downloadable content, namely Havoc, Ascendance, Supremacy, and Reckoning in a period between January 2015 to September 2015" and then talk about the content of these downloadable content.
• The reception section needs to be completely rewritten. It is unbalanced, and does not really give a good indication of the game's good points and bad points. It should also be written in a way that "The game's futuristic setting received a positive reaction. Reviewer X call it great and Reviewer Y thought that it was amazing.
• The lead said that it was nominated/won multiple awards, but only one award is listed.
• Citation format need to be overhauled. Date format is not consistent. Some older sources do not have the author and publisher/work field.
• Most sources seem reliable, besides this IGN wiki source.
• The development screenshot itself is not really good as it is more like a promotional image rather than actual game footage. It needs to be replaced.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list corporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   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:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The recent edits performed by the nominator is definitely an improvement to the article, and it is always good to see someone working on a major release. However, the foundation of the article is not good. It has a lot of original search, sometimes poorly-written, and as an article for a major release it really does not cover it well. I usually put the nomination on hold if the nominator has worked on the article, but I think that, if you want this article to achieve its GA status, it needs to be rewritten. Sorry but Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare cannot be promoted this time. Feel free to renominate it when you have addressed all the issues. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)