Talk:Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness/GA2

GA Review

Reviewer: Khanassassin (talk · contribs) 18:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I took a good look at the article, and it is VERY good. It is well written, reliable, it's stable, consists of images etc. Ihave fixed a few minor problems myself; One of the problems was the Predecessor and sequels section - Info about sequels should be included only in the article of the original title (in this case, Warcraft: Orcs & Humans) and the main series article (in this case, Warcraft). So, you have to delete the whole section.

Other than that, the article is more then ready for GA - So, let's get this over with!

Pass/Fail:

Hurry up, or I'll have to fail the article. --Khanassassin 20:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also note, that apart form good article criteria 3b breach (unnecessary details about other games in a series) I see a problem with 2b in WP:CITEVAR breach: the article intermixes full and short citations in Notes section. If short citations have to be used (which is likely the case, since at least two (or three: can't determine as I see a broken template with no content in References), then all full citations should go to References with short citations referencing them in-line. As the changes since the review began are strictly damaging, I would advise the reviewer to fail this nomination, suggesting re-nominating the article once the issues are addressed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is an issue with stability and in one version the refs are a mess. In the other one they appear fine (I made a few fixes). You might have viewed the damaged version. AIRcorn (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

IP here. Have removed the predecessor/sequels section and deleted the redundant refs. I'm not sure how to sort out the remaining problem with the refs. Seems a bit harsh to fail because of this when it could (presumably) be done quite easily. WP:BEBOLD and all that 129.11.76.229 (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I know it can be done asily, but I was waiting for for nearly 2 weeks. But, the article is pretty much done, apart from the ref problems FAIL

->:What I meant was you could have easily fixed the problems yourself and passed. I know you don't have to, but I can't imagine it would have been a lot of work if you knew what you were doing.

"If a problem is easy to resolve, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself."

Seems a shame to fail it over such a small thing 129.11.76.229 (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)