Jump to content

Talk:Development of Duke Nukem Forever

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleDevelopment of Duke Nukem Forever 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
DateProcessResult
June 13, 2011Articles for deletionKept
January 21, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Deletion tag

[edit]

I have removed the deletion tag from the article, as no justification was posted, and the article has lots of sources, is fairly well written, and is undeniably culturally significant. I suspect the tag was added in a spirit of vandalism. Hamish Paul Wilson (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you are wrong. Even if you don't agree with the afd rationale, you can not remove the tag until the afd discussion has concluded. If you remove the tag again, I will report you to an admin for vandalism. ScienceApe (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Development of Duke Nukem Forever/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be reviewing the article over the next few days. Below you will find the standard GAN criteria, along with a list of issues I have found. As criteria pass, a or will be replaced with a . Below the criteria you'll see a list of issues I've found. Feel free to work on them at any time. I will notify you when I'm done checking over the article. At that time I'll allow the standard one week for fixes to be made.

GA-Class Criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of 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 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:

Issues found

[edit]
  • Most references seem reliable, but some need formatting with titles, author, etc. Additionally publishers should have correct titles and italics where necessary (for example, Game Informer, not GameInformer). Right now there are multiple iterations of publishers, some spelled one way, some another, some wikilinked, some externally linked (and should be), some not wikilinked. Publishers should also be wikilinked where possible.
  • I believe that I've identified and modified them all.
  • What makes the following sources reliable?
  • Well, it seems the issue can be ignored entirely. #61 doesn't have the quote that was cited anymore, and neither #44 and #45 seemed to directly relate to the point, but I was able to find an alternate link that seems to relate to the prose.
  • So far prose looks pretty good. No quick spot-check issues.
  • Hooray!
  • Do those work?
  • Very astute.
  • Whole numbers under 10 should be spelled out as words, except when in lists, tables or infoboxes (WP:NUMERAL). I found one, but there may be others.
  • As far as my Edit > Find searches are showing, that was the only one.
  • Inline citations belong immediately after punctuation marks (WP:CITEFOOT). I know there's at least one in the Gearbox revival and release, 2010–2011 section

Reviewer: Teancum (talk · contribs) 14:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've completed the review. Please correct the following issues to have it pass GAN
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Development of Duke Nukem Forever. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Development of Duke Nukem Forever. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Development_of_Duke_Nukem_Forever&oldid=1205519078"