From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |
|
|
[edit] GA Review
Much better than it was, here is what to do for GA status;
- As always, fair use rationales need to be specific as to exactly what is demonstrated in the image and why it is significant.
- Three paragraph lead; first says what the game is, who made it, when it was released; second paragraph, summarize the plot, third paragraph, tell us how it was received (reception).
- Now don't automatically remove one, since I am just asking, but you should be very clear as to why you need both the diamond image and the attacking image. Are they really so different that you need both? Again, don't reflexively cut one, because they really are necessary they both should stay.
- For GA, and even more so for FA, more development information is needed; interviews with creators, changes that were reported in what the game was called or going to be like, influences, that kind of stuff needs to be added to the section, I would shoot for another paragraph if there is the material, and more for FA.
- Plot section is unreferenced.
- It is probably a matter of personal preference, but the legacy section is so shot, you could probably merge it into the last paragraph of reception.
- most of the references are not properly formatted, so make sure all information is included in them, and wikilink the publishers as always.
- Gamespot is repeated at least 3 times in the reception section, so rephrase a bit.
- Add a bit more detail to the reception section; any criticisms?
- And for FA, continue to build your copyediting skills and either get someone to review it or work on it yourself...a good idea is to make a checklist based on what people point out for correction so that you can check future articles with the list before you submit them.
- Do that stuff, and let me know how it goes, or if you have any questions. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, should be all done. Doing some minor copyediting now. Gary King (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- You did a good rationale on the page of the first game screenshot in the article, write one like that in the other two screenshots, which will then facilitate your decision as to which one to keep. Also, add another sentence to the development section, it is still looking small. That should do it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- alright done Gary King (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Very good! For FA, the usual stuff of expanding the development section more and copyediting it a bunch. Good work! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
