Talk:Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Four links are not good:Dragon Magazine, Harvey Smith, Ultima (all dismabig) and Ultima Underworld (self redirect)
   • Never use '-' or '--' for punctuation, instead use an unspaced emdash (—). This includes quotations, since dashes are typography, not grammar.
   • The 'plot' section is a bit short. I will not hold it against the article in this review, but I will mention it...
   • Include conversions for imperial units. Many non-American, non-British readers will not understand what ' is, and this should be converted to metric (in square brackets if in a quote).
   • There is no mention in the prose of which platforms it was launched on. Even more seriously, the PSX and Windows Mobile ports are not covered.
   • Would it not be better to have a paragraph on Ultima Online: Stygian Abyss in the 'legacy' section. 'See also' section, while permitted, should be avoided when possible, especially when it is necessary to explain their relevance.
   • Similar with Arx Fatalis: why is it worth having a 'see also' section, when it is not in the 'legacy' section?
   • While the technical aspects of the game are discussed in the legacy section, I would also like to know how the game falls into the Ultima series. Except for briefly mentioning which game it follows chronologically, nothing is mentioned.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • 'Gameplay' is almost not, and 'plot' is entirely unreferenced.
   • If an entire paragraph is from a single source, it is sufficient to have a single ref at the end of the paragraph.

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):

   Could there not be uploaded a screen shot? This was a DOS game, so surely it must be a fairly simple task to get a screen short for it. While only one image is required for GA, I would highly recommend this.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the game on hold. The article should pass once the matters have been resolved. Good work so far. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   Great! Everything has been seen to, and I am passing the article. However, I noticed that the accessdates do not have years. Please fix this up (I am passing the article in good faith that this will be done, to save us all some time). Again, I would really encourage a screenshot, but as mentioned, the game cover is sufficient for the GA criteria. Do none of the authors actually have the game and a DOS emulator? Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! I will take care of the problem with the accessdates as soon as possible (I have been using the "accessyear" code, but it looks like it doesn't work anymore). As for the screenshot, I do have the game, but I haven't been able to find time to take a good screen yet. I intend to take care of that shortly. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)