Talk:Empire Earth: The Art of Conquest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Empire Earth: The Art of Conquest has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Empire Earth: The Art of Conquest article.
Article policies
Knight chess piece This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low priority within strategy games for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Strategy games To-do:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Clyde Miller
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

[edit] Cleanup

Fixed some material which I felt was inadequately written. Also transferred the campaign summaries from the Empire Earth page to this one. Finally, deleted the "initial reactions" because it was heavily biased (not NPOV) and I felt wasn't worth keeping. Also added the sidebar and uploaded the picture cover. This page is really becoming something interesting. Thunderforge 04:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GApassed

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Good job; it could stand for a copy-edit and some more research/expansion for FA, but it's definitely GA material. — Deckiller 03:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

appears no significant copy edit has been done so I'll take a look at it now --carelesshx talk 13:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Copy edit done, normalised spelling to US English as per WP:ENGVAR. Removed inuse tag, added LoCE tag to talk page. Notified User:Clyde Miller to proofread --carelesshx talk 16:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in August 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.