Talk:Nuclear Strike

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Niemti (talk · contribs) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it already,[1] but for future: make a better with layout and flow (see my edit), don't repeat internal links and avoid nonexisting (red) ones, add more categories and order them alphabetically, use italics for titles, add more people to the box. --Niemti (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I only found Kosaka discussed in the secondary sources. Where'd you get those others? The titles that I did not italicise are in verbatim quotes, in which the sources didn't italicise them (except the Daily Radar quote, which does italicise it and which I missed); I think we don't link to Mobygames any more tbh, due to its unreliability and copyright violations, will check the WP:VG talk archives later. We do create Wikipedia:Red links for potentially notable people, companies, publications etc. bridies (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Um... Someone else might take over it, I don't think I'm qualified. I only wanted to comment. --Niemti (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nuclear Strike/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hahnchen (talk · contribs) 16:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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):

   Reasonably well written throughout. I think the plot section could be improved, it doesn't flow too well, consisting of short and disjointed sentences. Is the STRIKE force American? I'd swap the Gameplay and Plot sections. The reception section is the longest of the article by a surprising amount. I think this could be cut down without really losing any of the points, by summarising more of what the reviewers said rather than relying on quotes. The last paragraph for example, seems be quotes comparing it to Soviet Strike, many of them essentially saying the same thing - it could be more succinctly summarised.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Use the game itself and its instruction booklet to cover any referencing holes in the plot section.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   You should add the PC minimum requirements to the article. Would be nice to include sales figures too for an FA push.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Easily passes as a good article, with some suggestions for further development. For an FA push, you might also want to consider the sources used. Whereas you do have some good offline sources in, you do use AllGame, Gamespot, and other online sources quite heavily in the reception section. In the late 90's, these publications had no influence or readership, whereas print subscriptions were at an all time high. (I don't know anyone who has ever used AllGame for anything) I'm also wary of any quotes from the New Straits Times, which we see popping up on Wikipedia everywhere, not for its quality, but merely because you can find it on Google Books. Overall though, good work - I hope to see more in the future. - hahnchen 16:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)