Talk:Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 23:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Status

This section is supposed to be edited only by revier(s).

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):

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:

Discussion

Regarding the failing points:

1. 1(a): the Reception section features many disconnected sentences. It should be refactored in order to connect the phrases logically, so that the reviewers' opinions would form an image of game's reception.
2. 1(b): several formatting errors. Eg. last words in Victory conditions section. The article requires copy edit.
3. 1(b): the layout of Gameplay section doesn't make sense: the subsections should come in order that allows the previously uninformed reading them consequently (eg., the Victory conditions should come in the end).
4. 1(b): the {{sfn}} is misused, the links in the Notes section don't resolve to references.
5. 1(b): references are insufficiently formatted: the publishers that have their articles (eg., IGN) should be linked, the templates should not be broken.
6. 1(b): the Notes section would be better renamed to Footnotes. Not only this title is more accurate, but it also avoids confusion when the need for actual notes arises.  Done
7. 1(b): the Reception section discusses what one of the reviewers thought. This should be rephrased.
8. 2(a): some material is unreferenced; I'v indicated it with {{cn}}.
9. 2(a): the article relies on the single source in 66 of 118 citations. Though it doesn't violate anything on its own, I would like to receive a comment on the reasons of such weight given to the "Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares". Chipping Sodbury, South Gloucestershire, England: MicroProse. 1996. reference.  Done
10. 2(a): the game's manual qualifies as primary source per WP:PRIMARY. This policy requires that primary sources should be backed up with secondary sources.
11. 2(a): the article suffers from inline citation clutter. The editors with access to the printed source (game manual) should look into possibility to join several footnotes in order to unclutter. See this example.
12. 2(b): the article relies on a user-submitted review.
13. 2(b): some sources are referenced with {{sfn}}, but still are absent from References section.
14. 6(a): two images were hidden by bot. This issue should be addressed.
15. 6(b): the images should not wrap text from both sides.

As the amount of issues is great enough, I'm not sure I've already spotted all of them. But those in the list above should be addressed first. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Responses from Philcha

1. 1(a): the Reception section features many disconnected sentences. It should be refactored in order to connect the phrases logically, so that the reviewers' opinions would form an image of game's reception. --Philcha (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
   • The current sections "Backstory" (the history of Orion) and "Victory conditions" (mainly to control the largest population). Gamers are generally interested in how to win. --Philcha (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
   • To win, a gamer must understand how to build up their economy and technology. --Philcha (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
2. 1(b): the {{sfn}} is misused, the links in the Notes section don't resolve to references.
   • I've unlinks and removed the Notes section. The "Development" section gives similar information. --Philcha (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
   • I use the games manual as accurate, unless a profesion commentator (e.g. Chick) disagrees. --Philcha (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
   • Re weasal words, I now use Geryk's "compared" Space Empires: IV with Master of Orion: Battle at Antares. --Philcha (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
3. 2(a): some material is unreferenced; I'll indicate it with later.
   • Some material is unreferenced, in 3 paras of section "Stars and planets". The info comes from the game manual. --Philcha (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

--Philcha (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

1. 6(a): two images were hidden by bot. There's no lead image, as Atari silenty removed the games from it's menu. --Philcha (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
2. 6(b): the images should not wrap text from both sides.

As the amount of issues is great enough, I'm not sure I've already spotted all of them. But those in the list above should be addressed first. --Philcha (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

1. 6(b): two images were hidden by bot. At present there's also no "technology" image, to explain the prominence --Philcha (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
2. 6(b): I'll look later at using Internet Archivenet in hope of saving some info. --Philcha (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A Few points

1. I see no external references regarding the receptions of the game. All are {{sfn}}. The links for Metacrtics and IGN can be found regarding reception.
2. There is no cover art or the image give to the infobox.
3. The third para of Lead seems like being written just to expand the lead in a hasty way, as it feels disconnected from the other lead paras.
4. Incomplete image tag in The technology tree as well as in Playable races.
5. Gameplay is all but confusing.
6. No external links section stating its official website. 1

My suggestion:-Article still needs improvement. ASHU^IND 07:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The nominator (or other editors) failed to address any single point I draw above. I just didn't check deeper, as the evident issues like the lack of references are still present. I don't think this article has a chance. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

This article needs a lot of work in order to pass Good article criteria. As nobody stepped up to address those first sight problems I noted, I'm failing the nomination. I would encourage the interested editors to address these issues (and also those noted by ASHU^IND) and renominate the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)