Talk:Shadows over Camelot

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

King Arthur Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Arthur, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics 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.King ArthurWikipedia:WikiProject King ArthurTemplate:WikiProject King ArthurKing Arthur articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Strategy

The Strategy section of this article looks suspiciously like one particular, unreferenced, opinion. It makes assertions about "the best" way to do one thing or another without providing any supporting authority. Rarely is the best approach to anything in a good (in this case, award-winning) game so straightforward. This section needs to either limit itself to more generally self-evident observations or cite its sources. - Stellmach 14:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The strategy section looks like original analysis. We should limit coverage of strategy and tactics to referencing analysis done by third parties. For now I'd just re-added the original research tag, but unless someone comes up with a counter argument I'm prone to delete it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm purging it; it has remained unchallenged for months. Wikipedia is not a game guide (it's under "Instruction manuals"). Uncited, it is likely to be original research, which Wikipedia doesn't want. If the information were cited from noteworthy sources, it might be a good addition, but as it is we need to delete it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]