Talk:Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yunshui (talk · contribs) 09:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Interesting and well-written article, but still needs a small amount of work to get to GA standard.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Overall grammar, spelling and prose seem fine. Lead summarise content accurately, At times the tone veers towards that of an instruction manual, but this is almost certainly due to large sections being sourced to... an instruction manual. The Backstory section may benefit from being re-written from a real-world perspective.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Some potentially contraversial information still requires citations. For example, the statement in the lead that Atari silently removed the game from their online store is not sourced either in the lead itself or later in the article. The game itself, which constitutes a primary source, is used to cite a large amount of the article content (about 22%). Where sources were given, they were represented correctly and not subjected to interpretation. Some, however, do not meet the guidelines for reliable sources (for example, Meinfelder's "Rule the Galaxy for $50" is a Worldvillage.com article, Cybersaber's "Master of Orion II Online: Strategy Guide" is a blog post).
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The Gameplay section is overly specific and detailed, and is sourced almost exclusively to the game itself.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
There are a few of unsourced and slightly hyperbolic statements (It is still used as a yardstick in reviews of more recent space-based 4X games, The Master of Orion series set a new standard for space-based 4X games) which should be sourced, rephrased or removed, but these are very minor and easily fixed. The reviews are balanced and multiple perspectives are provided.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Aside from a brief spate of redlink additions by User:77.96.224.36 last month, there has been no edit-warring or instability for the last two years.
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):
Images are copyrighted but acceptable under fair use (comprehensive rationales provided) and correctly tagged.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Damn close to passing, but not quite there yet, so placing on hold to allow for improvements. The main things needed are a review of the sources, and a careful copyedit of the lengthy game description. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failed after no improvement in four weeks. No objection to seeing it relisted at GA in the near future. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One additional point

While I won't bring up Wikiproject Video games-based concerns, there is one glaring issue with Manual of Style compliance. WP:BODY states that "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." There are several one sentence paragraphs in the article, and also several subheadings that are extremely short. These should be addressed per WP:WIAGA item 1. --Teancum (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline for improvement

There's been no activity to address the issues raised above after three weeks. I'm going to give it one more week; if no improvements have been made by May 28th, I'll close the review as a fail. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Philcha doesn't appear to have edited at all last month. I've sent him an email, so hopefully he'll reply to this soon. -- クラウド６６８ 08:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this link for the (sad) reason. Geometry guy 23:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]