Talk:Champion of the Raj/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs)) 04:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jaguar: Grabbing this for a review.

Lead[edit]

  • Replace the semicolon after factions with a colon
  • I would suggest linking Mogul, Sikhs, and Marathas (but this is merely a suggestion and not a requirement)
  • Remove “mostly” and just say “mixed reviews”
  • Good point, done JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be specific with “various aspects of gameplay”. While this is the Lead, every sentence should be specific and not ambiguous so specify what aspects of gameplay are being praised.
  • I've corrected this. Upon reading it again, most of the gameplay was viewed negatively, so I mentioned that the storyline was praised instead JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put a semicolon between “gameplay” and “however”

Gameplay[edit]

  • Image needs an alt. and I would recommend using "upright"
  • I've added an alt. I don't know if I done something wrong, but every time I added "upright" it appeared to drastically shrink the image, so I was forced to leave that as it was JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would reword the second sentence to avoid repetitive language and be more concise: (Before starting the game, the clay can pick a player-character and side to play.)
  • Link Maruthras, Gurkhas, Maharajah, and Sikhs (Again a suggestion, but you can tell me why you would prefer not linking these)
  • Link or specify the meaning behind “chokey” as I am not entirely sure what you are referring to (I could be missing something very obvious).
  • Oops. I didn't know what a chokey was either, but I looked it up and it appears to be slang for "prison cell" (which is what I was expecting, but I thought it was a formal use for something). It's actually Anglo-Indian slang! I've just changed it to "prison cell". JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just say “1800”. The “the year” part is unnecessary and redundant
  • Specify what you mean by “status”
  • Changed to "popularity" for clarity JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the reference on the “game hunting session” to the end of the sentence.
  • Put a comma after “however”
  • Replace “has died through assassination” with “is assassinated”

Background[edit]

  • Remove comma after England
  • Great job with this section. I am very impressed with the research put into this section and the overall article.
  • Thank you! It wasn't easy, but I'm certain that's all of the information that can be found on a small company in the 80s. JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

  • I really like how you separated this section into two clear paragraphs with clearly defined topic sentences.
  • Thanks. I'm glad to see that there were no errors in this section this time. I was expecting this game to have more coverage, but half of the reviews were just snippets. JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • While not required for the nomination, I would highly recommend archiving all the links when applicable to avoid dead/broken links in the future.
  • I've archived what could be archived (excluding scans) JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments[edit]

  • @Jaguar:This article is already in great form; my comments are more focus on smaller details and once they are addressed, it will be a quick and easy pass. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: thank you for the review! I've addressed all of the above. The majority of the references were scans, which can't be archived, but I did the rest. One of my main interests are in British India and I had high hopes for this game, but when I watched a playthrough video of it on YouTube it turned out to be so bad. I'm glad the article doesn't appear that way, at least! JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jaguar: Great work! And I am glad that my comments could help in some way. I am very impressed with the work put into this article (especially as it is an older game and a majority of the references are scans. I am sorry that you are disappointed in the game, but at least you could make something great out of it! Looking forward to reviewing and reading your future working on here. ✓ Pass
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Champion_of_the_Raj/GA1&oldid=1085911200"