Talk:Champion of the Raj/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs)) 04:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Jaguar: Grabbing this for a review.
Lead
[edit]- Replace the semicolon after factions with a colon
- I would suggest linking Mogul, Sikhs, and Marathas (but this is merely a suggestion and not a requirement)
- Remove “mostly” and just say “mixed reviews”
- Good point, done JAGUAR 21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Be specific with “various aspects of gameplay”. While this is the Lead, every sentence should be specific and not ambiguous so specify what aspects of gameplay are being praised.
- I've corrected this. Upon reading it again, most of the gameplay was viewed negatively, so I mentioned that the storyline was praised instead JAGUAR 21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Put a semicolon between “gameplay” and “however”
Gameplay
[edit]- Image needs an alt. and I would recommend using "upright"
- I've added an alt. I don't know if I done something wrong, but every time I added "upright" it appeared to drastically shrink the image, so I was forced to leave that as it was JAGUAR 21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would reword the second sentence to avoid repetitive language and be more concise: (Before starting the game, the clay can pick a player-character and side to play.)
- Rephrased. JAGUAR 21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Link Maruthras, Gurkhas, Maharajah, and Sikhs (Again a suggestion, but you can tell me why you would prefer not linking these)
- Linked all JAGUAR 21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Link or specify the meaning behind “chokey” as I am not entirely sure what you are referring to (I could be missing something very obvious).
- Oops. I didn't know what a chokey was either, but I looked it up and it appears to be slang for "prison cell" (which is what I was expecting, but I thought it was a formal use for something). It's actually Anglo-Indian slang! I've just changed it to "prison cell". JAGUAR 21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Just say “1800”. The “the year” part is unnecessary and redundant
- Specify what you mean by “status”
- Changed to "popularity" for clarity JAGUAR 21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Move the reference on the “game hunting session” to the end of the sentence.
- Put a comma after “however”
- Replace “has died through assassination” with “is assassinated”
Background
[edit]- Remove comma after England
- Removed JAGUAR 21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Great job with this section. I am very impressed with the research put into this section and the overall article.
- Thank you! It wasn't easy, but I'm certain that's all of the information that can be found on a small company in the 80s. JAGUAR 21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Reception
[edit]- I really like how you separated this section into two clear paragraphs with clearly defined topic sentences.
- Thanks. I'm glad to see that there were no errors in this section this time. I was expecting this game to have more coverage, but half of the reviews were just snippets. JAGUAR 21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
References
[edit]- While not required for the nomination, I would highly recommend archiving all the links when applicable to avoid dead/broken links in the future.
- I've archived what could be archived (excluding scans) JAGUAR 21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Final comments
[edit]- @Jaguar:This article is already in great form; my comments are more focus on smaller details and once they are addressed, it will be a quick and easy pass. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: thank you for the review! I've addressed all of the above. The majority of the references were scans, which can't be archived, but I did the rest. One of my main interests are in British India and I had high hopes for this game, but when I watched a playthrough video of it on YouTube it turned out to be so bad. I'm glad the article doesn't appear that way, at least! JAGUAR 21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Jaguar: Great work! And I am glad that my comments could help in some way. I am very impressed with the work put into this article (especially as it is an older game and a majority of the references are scans. I am sorry that you are disappointed in the game, but at least you could make something great out of it! Looking forward to reviewing and reading your future working on here. ✓ Pass
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail: