Talk:Anarchy Online/GA1

GA Review

Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA and will be adding comments below. It looks like an interesting, well referenced article.

• "Anarchy Online is often referred to by the stability and registration issues present after its release in June 2001" - I think this sentence in the lead could be improved to be more clear.
• Under Gameplay, you have three different wikilinks that redirect to Experience point, both Experience points, skill system and free-form. It is especially frowned upon to use misleading piping, as with skill system, especially since they all go to the same article.
• "unique characters based on gender as well as several professions and breeds." - it might help at this point to give some examples, as later you refer to doctors and engineers which presumably fall under these categories.
• Some more explanation of the Gameplay would be good.
• In a third method to augment skills even further, player's can designate a percentage of earned experience towards "Research." - why the quotes and what is Research i.e. how does it help or benefit the player. What does the player do with it?
• Just curious - can players form their own groups or organizations, or does the game have ready-made ones?
• Under Development you mention "MMORPGs and MUDs" - you have not previously mentioned MUDS, so you should specify what it stands for. And why are you mentioning it for the first time here?
• Especially under Reception, it would be good to combine some of the short paragraphs. It is not good to have many short paragraphs. They should be used only occasionally for effect.
• "Alien Invasion's release in 2004" - you might explain here that this is an update. I had to hunt through the article to figure out what these names referred to.
• Was there any Legacy, Impact or Aftermath to this game? Did it have any lasting effect in the game world or in popular culture? Especially since the article ends on a negative note that subsequent releases were not effective, it would help to explain if this game has any lasting importance.
• "Craig Morrison said in an interview with MMORPG.com that "we hope to start comprehensive beta testing sometime [this] summer." - which summer is he talking about - give a year after his quote.

Thats all for now. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article Mattisse. It's always nice to get some outside feedback. A lot of your concerns about the Gameplay section were also brought up in this article's peer review, and I am currently working on parts of that section in my sandbox. Hopefully I can get all of what you mentioned fixed within 7 days. Sebquantic (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that I've fixed all the issues that you and the peer reviewers brought up about the article. Generally, smaller paragraphs were merged, "words to avoid" were fixed, the gameplay was elaborated, other subjects like the expansion packs were clarified, and other fixes. I added a few lines in the development section about the game's impact, although its hard to find more sources for that type of thing. The article in its current state is the closest I can get it to a GA nominee in my mind. Feel free to make your decision when you have time. --Sebquantic (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• "In addition to killing creatures spread about the game world..." - could you clarify this sentence? Also, you still have two redirects to experience points within lines of each other. Usually, you should not have more than one wikilink to the same thing in an article. See MOS:LINK#Overlinking_and_underlinking. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have delinked the second instance. The article passes GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Final 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.

   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:

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Sebquantic (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)