Wasteland Angel has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 16, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that publisher Meridian4 compared the video game
Wasteland Angel to
honey badgers and even used a video of badgers to promote the game? |
Per request as
WP:VG, I'll be assessing the article to determine whether or not it should receive B-Class status. Consequently, I'll be stacking it up against the criteria listed at
WP:B?
B1: Referenced - Dubious. Try to find a few more sources, if you can, preferably from more reliable websites. It may be a decent idea to throw one or two sources into the introduction paragraph, as well, though this isn't absolutely necessary.
B2: Coverage - The article is suitably covered, though it could use a little more elaboration in the Plot section, and if it's possible, a couple more reviews to provide a bit of balance to the reception section.
B3: Structure - Spiffing!
B4: Grammar - There are a few rather awkward sentences, which would probably be better off being either combined with or split into other sentences, depending on which one we're talking about. However, it's generally acceptable for B-class.
B5: Periphery - Spiffing!
B6: Clarity - Though a decent job of this was done, there should probably be significantly more
wikifying in the gameplay section- possibly the plot section as well. Napalm is linked to twice, though, and there are several terms that should probably be explained in more detail or, preferably, linked to, including:
top-down perspective,
World War III,
upgrade,
comic panels,
incendiary ammunition,
boss,
mutant,
radiation,
militia,
operator.
Ultimately, the article has a little more work that needs to be done before meeting B-Class criteria, although I genuinely applaud the effort you've made to expand this article. There are only a few issues that need to be sorted out before the article can be successfully assessed, specifically B1 and B6. Unfortunately, until these are addressed, the article still appears to be C-Class. Hammerbrodude ( talk) 02:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. B. :). -- JDC808 ♫ 03:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sjones23 ( talk · contribs) 23:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello there. Here are a few things that may need to be improved before I pass or fail this GAN:
I will check on the other issues later. Good luck, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm back. Anyways, here are some things that I would like to go over.
Hope these help. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 20:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Wasteland Angel has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 16, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that publisher Meridian4 compared the video game
Wasteland Angel to
honey badgers and even used a video of badgers to promote the game? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Per request as
WP:VG, I'll be assessing the article to determine whether or not it should receive B-Class status. Consequently, I'll be stacking it up against the criteria listed at
WP:B?
B1: Referenced - Dubious. Try to find a few more sources, if you can, preferably from more reliable websites. It may be a decent idea to throw one or two sources into the introduction paragraph, as well, though this isn't absolutely necessary.
B2: Coverage - The article is suitably covered, though it could use a little more elaboration in the Plot section, and if it's possible, a couple more reviews to provide a bit of balance to the reception section.
B3: Structure - Spiffing!
B4: Grammar - There are a few rather awkward sentences, which would probably be better off being either combined with or split into other sentences, depending on which one we're talking about. However, it's generally acceptable for B-class.
B5: Periphery - Spiffing!
B6: Clarity - Though a decent job of this was done, there should probably be significantly more
wikifying in the gameplay section- possibly the plot section as well. Napalm is linked to twice, though, and there are several terms that should probably be explained in more detail or, preferably, linked to, including:
top-down perspective,
World War III,
upgrade,
comic panels,
incendiary ammunition,
boss,
mutant,
radiation,
militia,
operator.
Ultimately, the article has a little more work that needs to be done before meeting B-Class criteria, although I genuinely applaud the effort you've made to expand this article. There are only a few issues that need to be sorted out before the article can be successfully assessed, specifically B1 and B6. Unfortunately, until these are addressed, the article still appears to be C-Class. Hammerbrodude ( talk) 02:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. B. :). -- JDC808 ♫ 03:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sjones23 ( talk · contribs) 23:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello there. Here are a few things that may need to be improved before I pass or fail this GAN:
I will check on the other issues later. Good luck, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm back. Anyways, here are some things that I would like to go over.
Hope these help. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 20:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)