Talk:Kingdom of Loathing/GA2

GA Review

Because the article requires considerable work and referencing issues from the last GA attempt haven't been rectified, I'm quick-failing KoL. The article is coming along nicely but the wiki sources remain from the previous GA attempt and the article as it stands is a C-class article.

Some suggestions:

• Please review this newsletter's suggestions for writing a lead and implement them accordingly.
• The article is filled with excessive sub-headings of different sizes, making reading a stop-start-stop-start affair. Though I'd expect some sub-headings due to MMOGs having comparitively complex gameplay mechanisms, this many is unwarranted. For instance the player interaction sub-heading seems fine, but the further sub-headings are just chopping up the prose when it could easily flow from one aspect to the next. The same goes for character classes, particularly as they are grouped by stat-focus and basic type (warrior, mage and thief).
• References should come directly after punctuation (no spaces) and there should be no spaces between multiple citations.
• Plot and setting is unsourced, and if what's there represents all that could be said about it then it would possibly be better as a sub-heading of gameplay rather than a standalone section. Swathes of the article are unsourced.
• History focuses mostly on named events rather than how the game came into being, this is very important for GA. Are no interviews etc. covering this aspect in more depth?
• Reception is not carrying much information at all, I'd like to see contributors really getting to the guts of the critique - what do they think of the game, the humour, the players? What aspects of the game are highlighted in multiple sources?
• References are a mess, red-linked dates with months in text should have set off warning-bells, they're inconsistently formatted. Web references should all be formatted like reference #2 (note that the Escapist has an article and can be linked within the reference) - author/publisher/date/accessdate, all that info should be in the citations.
• The reviews seem OK in terms of reliability, but most of the sources are forum posts and wiki pages, they really need removing altogether or keeping to the absolute minimum - if you need to use them then be prepared to justify them.
• An additional copy-edit or peer review would be a good route to go down before renominating. Before that, things like the inconsistent referencing styles, cross-referencing and more appropriate references, spaces between citations etc. should be rectified. If you force yourself to actually read the article word-for-word instead of mentally skipping over text you're so familiar with, things will spring out at you.

Thanks for the work you've done so far. Someoneanother 16:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)