Talk:Cannon Fodder 2

Cannon Fodder 2 has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 8, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 1, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the designer of Cannon Fodder 2 started writing a novella to accompany the game, but the publisher vetoed the project, leaving reviewers baffled by the game's lack of plot?

Video games Low‑importance

This 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Purple Francis (6 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (2 participants)
Dr. Wily (6 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Stardew Valley Guidebook (2 participants)
Train simulator (disambiguation) (8 participants)
Preston Arsement (4 participants)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)
Melee (game terminology) (6 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (7 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (7 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cannon Fodder 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 10:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall: I would merge the plot section with the gameplay but the currect format does not hinder the promotion. Perhaps also add the system requirements ;). Nice article! Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pass/Fail: