Talk:Medieval: Total War/GA1

GA Review

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

Lets start with a preliminary review. The article is in decent shape and most of the essential information seems to be here, but there's quick a lot of prose and manual of style faults to deal with before it can be passed. To save time and to smooth the process, I'm going to copyedit the article myself to deal with these problems rather than listing them here; that will get the bulk of the problems out of the way. However, there are some other problems revolving around comprehensiveness, images, etc that still need to be addressed, though these shouldn't present too much of a problem. I'll get back to these when I put together a full review after copyediting. -- Sabre (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for doing that, I probably should of requested someone else to copyedit the article before nominating it, considering I re-wrote most of it myself. QueenCake (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be references for the release dates in the lead. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression cites were not needed in the lead. QueenCake (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, introductions and infoboxes should have as few references as possible; as its a summary, what's in it should be sourced in the rest of the article. The release dates are referenced in the development section, so there's no need to reference it again. -- Sabre (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

There are a few issues that need to be addressed before the article can become a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
My copyedit should have dealt with most of the weaknesses in style and prose, although a few may have escaped my notice. I'd recommend a peer review if you plan to take this article up to FA in the near future.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The article doesn't contain anything on the game's awards and legacy; I know it received a few awards and Top 100 places in the industry media (some of which are mentioned on CA's website). A few sentences into the reception section should solve that.

I added a paragraph on the awards I could reference from the website. QueenCake (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats just about sufficient for the moment, but get those properly referenced to the original publications as soon as you can find them. Referencing CA itself isn't the best approach. -- Sabre (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
You tread closely to perhaps going into too much detail in gameplay terms, but its just about on the right side of the line.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Fair use rationales aren't brilliant—one is written in completely the wrong tone for such a thing—but that can be dealt with after the following point is resolved.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
I really think that the images could use an overhaul:

The campaign map one isn't the best one for representing the game, as every province in the game is controlled by one faction. A screenshot that at least acknowledges the existence of other factions and their distribution in the game world, perhaps one from the beginning of one of the three start periods, would help clear that up. In addition, the current image is not a low-resolution image.
With reference to WP:NFCC 3a, we don't need two images to assist in commentary on the amount of units that the engine can handle and siege battles. One image can serve both purposes sufficiently. I would say keep File:Medieval- Total War Sieges.jpg as it does both, but to be honest, I'd prefer a screenshot that also showed the batle HUD and interface as well.

Added new images for the campaign and land battles, including the battle interface. I could not find a non-watermarked image for sieges on the net however. QueenCake (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've not been able to find a good siege battle either, but you're always able to create your own screenshots from the game. Be aware that FA reviewers will come to the point of only needing one image to do the work of both, you should still look for a good siege battle image fulfils the stated purposes of both. -- Sabre (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass or Fail:
~~I'm putting the article on hold for the moment, pending resolution of the few issues above. -- Sabre (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
The article has passed. Congratulations. -- Sabre (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]