Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…This was a good article but was removed mostly because it had no development section; I've added one and have contributed to a lot of other things to the article; I think this article it worthy of becoming a GA again, but I need to be sure it is worthy and if there are any flaws in it; note that the campaign section is the equivalent of story/plot sections like other video game/film articles and is optional to have references for it, and this is one of those articles where it is chosen to NOT have references in the campaign section
Thanks, SCB '92 ( talk) 20:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm both familiar with this article (made some tweaks to it years ago) and its subject, so I believe I can be efficient here as a reviewer. Since the objective is to get this article into GA shape, I'm going to pay extra attention to GA criteria. I'm starting the review this evening (GMT) hopefully, or within 48 hours at the latest. GregorB ( talk) 14:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll post my comments here in no particular order and summarize in the end. I'll add more comments as I go through the article. So:
All in all: this is a fine work and a clear improvement over the version that originally made GA, even without taking the development section into consideration. In terms of GA criteria, the only critical remarks I have are actually in the first two bullets, as these problems could fail the article on WP:WIAGA #1 (intro and layout/prose). The rest are either minor issues or merely (mild) suggestions.
This concludes my review. I'll keep watching this page and possibly provide more comments. GregorB ( talk) 21:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review by the way- SCB '92 ( talk) 16:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…This was a good article but was removed mostly because it had no development section; I've added one and have contributed to a lot of other things to the article; I think this article it worthy of becoming a GA again, but I need to be sure it is worthy and if there are any flaws in it; note that the campaign section is the equivalent of story/plot sections like other video game/film articles and is optional to have references for it, and this is one of those articles where it is chosen to NOT have references in the campaign section
Thanks, SCB '92 ( talk) 20:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm both familiar with this article (made some tweaks to it years ago) and its subject, so I believe I can be efficient here as a reviewer. Since the objective is to get this article into GA shape, I'm going to pay extra attention to GA criteria. I'm starting the review this evening (GMT) hopefully, or within 48 hours at the latest. GregorB ( talk) 14:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll post my comments here in no particular order and summarize in the end. I'll add more comments as I go through the article. So:
All in all: this is a fine work and a clear improvement over the version that originally made GA, even without taking the development section into consideration. In terms of GA criteria, the only critical remarks I have are actually in the first two bullets, as these problems could fail the article on WP:WIAGA #1 (intro and layout/prose). The rest are either minor issues or merely (mild) suggestions.
This concludes my review. I'll keep watching this page and possibly provide more comments. GregorB ( talk) 21:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review by the way- SCB '92 ( talk) 16:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)