Talk:Europa Barbarorum/GA2
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: SCB '92 (talk · contribs) 10:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article was nominated for GA almost 3 months ago; definitely overdue for a GAR; if I don't review it, no-one will; I think it's because people are reluctant on reviewing articles of PC mod games;
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
"Rome: Total War" can be abbreviated as RTW, but is not abbreviated at all throughout the article, even fully used twice in the first sentence; same goes for Europa Barbarorum not being abbreviated to EB; "non-English-language" should be changed to "non-English language"
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
I doubt that "Reviewers" needs to be wikilinked; what the hell does "verisimilitude" mean? you wikilink "Reviewers" but you don't wikilink this? I doubt that the casual reader would know this word
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- There are many sources
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
The article seems to be in British English, but in Ref 50, the date is written as June 8, 2010. should be changed to 8 June 2010
- C. No original research:
The third paragraph of the "Campaign" subsection is completely unsourced; the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Warfare" subsection is unsourced; the last sentence of the first and second paragraph of the "Development" section is unsourced, and the last paragraph of this section is completely unsourced; "Other magazines which have reviewed the mod include Portuguese magazine BGamer in December 2007." source?
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- It's okay
- B. Focused:
- If focused means comparing it to RTW throughout
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- unbiased
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- no edit wars
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- most are public domain
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well one of the images has no caption, but the caption for this is used to compare it; I see what you did there
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
I'll give you seven days to address these issues#
- Pass or Fail:
Response[edit]
- 1a
Question: Regarding "RTW" etc., I was given the exact opposite advice at peer review: hence, are you sure you want me to change it?- "Non-English language"
Done.
- 1b
- Reviewers de-link Done.
- Verisimilitude link Done.
- Reviewers de-link
- 2b
- Date format change Done.
- Date format change
- 2c
- Campaign paragraph 3 referencing Done.
- Question: Warfare last sentence trimmed; the relevant quote from the source is now
Is that OK now?New custom formations designed by the Europa Barbarorum team which give the AI greater flexibility and incentive to perform realistic battlefield manouvers.
- Development paragraph 1 Done.
- Development paragraphs 2—3 Done.
- BGamer sentence removal Done.
- Campaign paragraph 3 referencing
- It Is Me Here t / c 14:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- 1a
Everything looks much better now; no original research is the most important point really; though the Peer reviewer says to use the full title, the user also said that using Rome: Total War or Europa Barbarorum once or twice in each paragraph is more than enough, but in the second paragraph of the "Gameplay" section, Europa Barbarorum is used six times, and Rome: Total War is used 4 times; but since you were advised to use the full title and have addressed the main issues, I'll pass this-SCB '92 (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)