Talk:Call of Duty: World at War/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
watch your images; follow MOS:IMAGE
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm literally out of time here (which is why 2 &3 aren't done); I'll do a more in-depth review when I am at college tomorrow. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed the problem with the image layout. Jolly Ω Janner 14:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sorry about that. :) My comments, in no particular order - (on this version):

References at the end of paragraphs cover the entire para, right? (I.e. #13, #3)
Can you cut down on the refs in the lead? Per WP:LEAD, it should be a summary of the entire article, and stuff in it can be repeated and cited in the main body of the article.
Why don't you reorganize the article based on COD4? That is a FA, and it seemed like the order of the sections there flowed better.
Expand "Development" and get rid of the tag. This can't be passed with an {{expand}} tag sitting there...
The "Nintendo DS" section confuses me. Has that version been released or not?
With references, I'm going to AGF and assume that they are reliable for a video game article (this is a bit out of my comfort zone...=])
I've placed this on hold; fix these problems and this will pass easily - few, if any, prose errors and it is very well referenced... :) Cheers! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! The article looks significantly better! I just wanted to say kudos to whomever contributed to the recent improvements.Splew (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the "bulk" of the story, although many other contributers did improvements to it. I basicaly played through the campaign on recruit level and took notes, as I went through each mission :) Jolly Ω Janner 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed states that he's rather out of his comfort zone with this, and as I imagine plot summaries rarely feature in military history articles, I must jump in here. The plot section is far too long for a quality article at this point. It is 1,500 odd words and essentially a blow-by-blow account of each mission. Do not follow CoD4's example of this sort of plot section, it is liable to end up at featured article review sometime soon based on the excessive length of that plot summary. A good plot summary should be concise and short - around 500-700 words max, roughly three or four paragraphs. 11 paragraphs is far too long. Compare with articles such as Halo 1#Plot, StarCraft#Plot, Grim Fandango#Plot, FAs on subjects far more story-focused than this game, which use short and concise plot summaries.

As for development information, the very least that could be done is a paragraph or so on the game's production history. Such coverage would include when the game was announced, convention appearances such as at E3, media releases such as the game's trailer and demo, when development was completed and finally when the game was released, all intermingled with bits of information from interviews and comments from developers in previews. A quick search of places like GameSpot and IGN shows the sort of sources that can be used here -- Sabre (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Sabre. This article's excessive plot length and incredibly short development information are big problems. As is, the article does not satisfy criteria 3. --Torsodog^Talk 16:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did have my reservations about the summary...and no, milhist has no plot summs, but I have a lttle experience. :) I was going to pass it if the other issues were fixed becuase I didn't think that it was the biggest deal, but evidently I was wrong. :) Thanks Sabre and Torsodog! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will make a draft at some point. Still no response from the GA nominator... Jolly Ω Janner 16:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to intrude, but the template at the top says editors have seven days to rectify the concerns raised. It's been ten days now, and both the plot being very long, and development information being apparently quite hard to find suggest that these aren't quick-fix issues that can be done to pass it any time soon. I think this should probably be denominated and another good push done on those two sections before renominating. SynergyBlades (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you for the poke. My apologies Jolly, but keep at it; you can do it. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, although I didn't nominate it. I will inform the nominator and continue improving the article. Jolly Ω Janner 17:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]