Talk:Ogre (game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ogre (game) 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.
March 28, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Why is the title of this page written as if it were an acronym? It isn't, you know. 22:08, 3 March 2004 The Epopt

It looks like that's been fixed. rewinn 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

But the REAL reason I came to talk: I remember the 1st version of the game had GEVs whose 2nd move was 4 hexes, so a fleet of GEVs could easily defeat a OGRE by move/shoot/flee. The 2nd version cut down the 2nd move a bit so the tactic was not nearly as effective. A smart rev although annoying to we GEV fans! rewinn 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on Hold

• The second lead paragraph needs be sourced, how do we know the game was republished in 2000?

Found one source for this, looking for another.

• In the game description, it says the game uses a Mark III ogre, what does that mean, is Mark it's name or what?

I tried to clear this up a little bit. I think it's called a Mark III Ogre in the same fashion that the Sherman tank was given the designation of M4. In other words, it's slightly arbitrary and, in the case of the Sherman, was decided by some bureaucratic mechanism of the US military. In the case of the game, I'm guessing (as I don't know Steve Jackson) that it was simply a "cool sounding name" for the heavy tank the attacker controls.

• The second paragraph of the game description needs to be sourced for verification.

Added one source, and looking for another.

• The last two paragraphs of the game description: it should be considered of moving it to somewhere like a Game reception section, or it can remain there, but what those two famous people thought of the game doesn't fit too much with it's description.

Moved to a section I called "Critical Reception".

• In the spinoff section, the paragraph about the G.E.V spinoff needs to be sourced.

Found one source, and looking for another one.

Overall

• The article is written well, but there are parts that need to be sourced. Once these problems are addresses, please notify me on my talkpage.--TrUCo-X 19:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just noting my progress so far. Still not completed. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just notify when all of its complete.TrUCo-X 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm all done now. Hope it's all up to specs.  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for appropriately modifying my edit. The article looks great. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass:Good Job on replying to the queries. It is a good board game article.TrUCo-X 21:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)