Talk:Wasteland Angel

B-Class Assessment

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)

I believe I have directly addressed B4 and B6: [1]. In regards to B1, I am not really sure what is wrong with my sourcing. Per the B1 criteria, I have included reliable sources in the article and added inline citations to important or controversial material. Please let me know if the changes are sufficient for B-Class assessment. Thank you. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there anymore information on the development of the game? Is the Plot section summarizing the whole game, or a part of it? It feels like there should be more, or does the game pretty much end with that last sentence? Is there anymore reviews for the game? And the lead needs information of the game's reception. --JDC808 ♫ 06:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at the article. I expanded the plot section with other information I found. Sadly, I could not find any other sources on the development. I did find one other review for the game but have not yet incorporated it into the article. I know the article needs more work, but what other work do you feel it needs to just meet B-Class criteria? --Odie5533 (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much what I mentioned. Those areas seemed lacking for a B article. The Plot section is better, I would now only suggest to make it two paragraphs. I understand on Development as it did only have a few months for information to come about. Maybe there'll be some interview in the future that'll say some things about the development that haven't been said. Add that review and I'll promote the article to B. --JDC808 ♫ 08:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I have added the review and split the plot section as you recommended. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. B. :). --JDC808 ♫ 03:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wasteland Angel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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:

• The date formatting in the citations may need to be consistent.
• IGN is a work published by News Corporation, so you may want to include the publisher in the IGN sources as well.

I will check on the other issues later. Good luck, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Done. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm back. Anyways, here are some things that I would like to go over.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is well written, but should the lead be expanded to two or three paragraphs if possible?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All the sources seem to be good enough. All dead citations were replaced.

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.:

   No edit wars occuring here.

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):

   All of the images have FARs and have appropriate use with suitable captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I will check to see if this article passes or fails if possible.

Hope these help. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I expanded the lead and split it into 3 paragraphs: [2] --Odie5533 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think GameRankings might need to be added in as well to summarize the critical reception of the game. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Done --Odie5533 (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am passing this article as a GA. Good work! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reviewing the article. WP:GAN has the final steps for finishing off the review. Thank you again. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)