Talk:Empire: Total War/GA1

GA Review

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

• If the "The" in The Creative Assembly is part of the company's name, it should always be capitalized.

•  Done -- Sabre (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

• Slightly qualified the wording, but I think its a valid point: quite a few critics were positive in this regard. -- Sabre (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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".

•  Done -- Sabre (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Can "console" be wikilinked?

•  Done -- Sabre (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Showcased" is used twice in rapid succession. Can one instance be changed (to "demonstrated", perhaps) to avoid redundancy?

•  Done -- Sabre (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• The "trailer" wikilink leads to a disambiguation page.

•  Done -- Sabre (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• The Development section has big walls of text in the form of two oversized paragraphs. Can they be broken down?

• Don't really think they were oversized, but  Done -- Sabre (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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?

• The source doesn't say. I assume its individually, but I don't want to synthesize info from the source. -- Sabre (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• "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.

•  Done -- Sabre (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• The entire first paragraph in the Warfare subsection cites no sources.

•  Done, added a primary source reference to the manual; since the first paragraph is all generic series overview stuff its all in the manual. -- Sabre (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• The Warfare section's second paragraph has two references to the same source in succession. The first instance probably isn't necessary.

•  Done -- Sabre (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Reference #8 lists no publisher.

•  Done -- Sabre (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• A few sources have unwikilinked publishers.

•  Not done All publisher fields that have corresponding articles have been wikilinked as far as I can see. -- Sabre (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Shacknews is the only one, I think. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 15:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Sabre (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Are the inlines in the lead infobox necessary? Is the information provided elsewhere in the article?

•  Doneish, I've removed the redundant ones. -- Sabre (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is Gamecyte a reliable source?

• Not a source I'm familiar with—I didn't add it—I'll check it out. I think it will probably pass. -- Sabre (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

Good enough for me. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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 (t – c) 08:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Alright, I think that's everthing! -- Sabre (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 11:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)