Talk:Call of Duty 2
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Call of Duty 2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find video game sources: "Call of Duty 2" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
 | Call of Duty 2 was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
June 2005 – April 2007 |
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Xbox 360 Release Date[edit]
Call of Duty 2 was released on Nov 22 in North America, and not on Nov 17. http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Games/Xbox360Games?page=34&sortby=ReleaseDate
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Pls correct this. Thanks
112.209.142.226 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
GA Reassessment[edit]
Call of Duty 2[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
While this article isn't in the worst state ever, I've questioned the GA status on it for a while now. My issues with the article include the Gameplay section consisting of some pretty faulty sourcing, the Plot section having weird writing, a completely separate section for a seemingly trivial advertisement controversy, and several smaller bits of the article not having any sourcing at all (ex. nothing in the article verifies the game as being considered one of the best of all time, and sourcing the Wikipedia list isn't an acceptable means of verification.)
I personally feel this article to fall more in line with a C-Class article than a GA at this current point in time, though I do think that if someone were to really put in the effort, it could be whipped into shape. λ NegativeMP1 05:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)