Talk:Day of Defeat: Source/GA1

GA Review

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:

• "evolved from being a straight conversion of Day of Defeat by altering certain aspects of the game's design and introducing several new features" - when reading the "evolved" I was expecting an "evolved from... to..."... can you format it like that, the way it currently is takes a bit of time to make sense of (for me at least).
• "being praised for its..." - would work better without the "being" (at least)
• "Players select from one as six classes to play as, each with its own role within the team" - one OF six?
• I think the Game modes section should be split into two paragraphs at least.
• "Phong shading, depth of field, color correction and film grain effects in use." - I'm not seeing them. :) Can you be more specific?
• I don't think you need to say how many reviews it's based on in the Compilations of multiple reviews section of the reviewbox.
• "receiving a rating of 80% on the review aggregation site Metacritic[34] and an 81% rating on Game Rankings" - reword this so you're saying that both MC and GA are review aggregators (at the moment you're only saying that MC is).
• [1] his full name is Shawn Elliot (does "1UP editor" imply staff?)
• I don't think the second external link is necessary.
• I'm not convinced that having that many images is absolutely necessary.

And please leave me a note when done. Cheers, giggy _(:O) 06:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1.  Done, I've reworded it a bit to ditch the use of evolved. Any better?
2.  Done
3.  Done
4.  Done
5.  Done The phong effects were the shine on the helmet, depth of field's the fact its focused on the machine gunner, film grain's the general effect applied over the whole image. The problem is the fair use size has reduced the extent that you can clearly see some effects, principly the film grain. You needed to open up the image to get a good look at it. I've replaced it with another image where the effects are more apparent.
6.  Not done Plenty of other articles do. It comes down to editor choice rather than any guideline or convention.

   Shrugs. Probably editor choice. giggy _(:O) 01:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

7.  Done
8.  Done The reference had "|fist=Shawn" rather than "|first=Shawn", so his first name wasn't turning up.
9.  Done
10.  Not done I'd disagree with this one. In addition to the box art, we've got an in-game view from the player's perspective, showing the Italian environments, another in-game view from a third-person perspective, showing the player characters in a firefight. Getting decent shots of player characters in-game is rather hard to do, you generally get shot before you get a chance to take a screenshot. The other two show the game at an earlier stage of development, a reasonably useful image for readers, and one showing post-processing effects as well as exemplifying the marketing of the game. Ok, you couldn't make out the effects in the image, so I've replaced it with one where effects are more pronounced - although it lacks the phong shading. Each image has a distinct purpose in mind, they all seem valid to me.

    The new image is much more effective. giggy _(:O) 01:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that should be all of them. -- Sabre (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)