Talk:Icewind Dale II/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MASEM (t) 14:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Review comments:
- Well written - I see no major prose problems. I did catch one case in the lede where a linked term was not linked on first usage (Infinity Engine), but nothing that can't be fixed. I will say, however, I think the plot section can be improved by trimming some of its fat. It is hard to follow as it is based on a "they went here and did this" approach. I'm not an expert at this game, but I have a feeling this can be reduced further without losing much by dropping some of the names included and their role when they only enter the story once, and instead a more holistic picture. (I realize that the game does sound like it wander in its plo) Watch for the introduction of names of people or places here without explanation of their role or definition.
- Accuracy - See no issues here.
- Thorough - The only thing really lacking is sales information but I expect that would be difficult to find for this age of a game.
- NPOV - Seems unbiased
- Stable - No problems
- Images - The cover image is lacking source information, which should be included. I would also recommend using the standard {{non-free use rationale}} template to provide a concrete rationale for both. The image use is fine.
I'm putting this on hold to fix some the plot and image issues. MASEM (t) 14:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I nominated this one at the request of an anon editor who put in a bunch of work on it (under more than one IP address). Haven't heard too much from him in a while, so don't know if he's still around. I'll give him a day or three and then ask around at the VG project talk page to see if anyone is familiar enough with the game to give the plot section a proper trim. BOZ (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Added a fair use to the cover but it could do with a reduction in size. Salavat (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Image rationales added. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, and thanks for the review. I'm the editor BOZ mentioned. To clear up any confusion, I edited the article as the IPs 71.244.162.25 and 70.106.205.159. A lot of thanks to Salavat and Drilnoth for providing image rationale. It also appears that someone has decreased the image size, which is good, because I wouldn't have known what I was doing. I'll get to work on the plot as soon as I can. 70.106.212.170 (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, and yes, the image rationales are now well taken care of. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Box art still needs to be re-uploaded at a smaller size somewhere between 250px-300px Salavat (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. I saw that someone had decreased the size of the boxart, and assumed that they had re-uploaded the image. Unfortunately, IPs can't upload images, so I won't be able to fix the image size. Do you know anyone I could ask to help me? 70.106.212.170 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Box art still needs to be re-uploaded at a smaller size somewhere between 250px-300px Salavat (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, and yes, the image rationales are now well taken care of. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, and thanks for the review. I'm the editor BOZ mentioned. To clear up any confusion, I edited the article as the IPs 71.244.162.25 and 70.106.205.159. A lot of thanks to Salavat and Drilnoth for providing image rationale. It also appears that someone has decreased the image size, which is good, because I wouldn't have known what I was doing. I'll get to work on the plot as soon as I can. 70.106.212.170 (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Image rationales added. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Added a fair use to the cover but it could do with a reduction in size. Salavat (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The plot has been trimmed somewhat; how close is it now? BOZ (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- It reads much better, though I am still confused about the time travel part of the last para. It reads as if the group goes through the bottom area, is transported a day back but at the same place, and keeps doing this until they realize this, but end up far enough back to learn the cause of the war. If this is not the case, it does need to be made clearer (why is the time travel relevent, is my question - I assume it is , but it's difficult to understand). --MASEM (t) 23:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Drilnoth. And, now that you mention it, Masem, the time-traveling story isn't that vital to the plot, though I think you got the gist of it. I removed it, since there are several other incidents that occur—like in the Underdark, Jungles of Chult, and Black Raven Monastery—that I barely mention. 70.106.212.170 (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent. All is good, and passing as GA. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Drilnoth. And, now that you mention it, Masem, the time-traveling story isn't that vital to the plot, though I think you got the gist of it. I removed it, since there are several other incidents that occur—like in the Underdark, Jungles of Chult, and Black Raven Monastery—that I barely mention. 70.106.212.170 (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)