Talk:Nuketown/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Joeyquism (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 04:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Joeyquism (talk · contribs) 23:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I used to play Black Ops so much as a kid, so I'm sure reviewing this will be a good kick of nostalgia for me. I'll complete the initial review within the week. --Joeyquism (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is mostly good; however, from what I can see there are several violations of MOS:POSS — specifically the usage of "maps" (plural of the word "map") instead of "map's" (possessive). Other small things I picked up: This version of the map was known as "Nuketown 2025," and the maps maps aesthetic was changed to be more in line with the 1960s than the 1950s. — The word "maps" appears twice. It should also be "map's". [...] and GameRadar+'s Jeremy Peel wrote [...] — MOS:APOSTROPHE: The apostrophe is contained within the wikilink; use the `{{'s}}` template or the nowiki tag. A month later, a version of the map that was playable in the games zombie mode was released. — Should be "game's", and I think "zombie" should be "Zombies" with a capital Z? That is the official name of the mode AFAIK. To accommodate for the games new movement mechanics, the map received a redesign to emphasize vertical movement — Same as above. He also stated that, regardless of the players skill [...] — Should be "player's". [...] everybody would die in the end, and no achievements of an individual would matter [...] — I think this part can do without the comma; the sentence it belongs to is a bit choppy to read because of all the clauses. May just be personal preference though. For this part in particular I reorganized the sentence and cut the Berlin Wall bit entirely, since it was probably the least substantial sentence in the reception section. Sentence should read easier now. Otherwise, everything looks great and is very easy to understand. Well done (but do still fix these things)!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See 1a; MOS:POSS and MOS:APOSTROPHE violations.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Looks good, but I'd wikilink the works/publishers of the sources.
	2b. 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).	RNG'd a sample of six references: Source spot check: [1] — Source supports all except the citation for the sentence: At the end of each multiplayer game on "Nuketown", a nuclear bomb is dropped on top of the location, obliterating it as the results of the match are displayed. I guess you could say the mention of "impending doom" is a reference to this, but I don't see anything that explicitly mentions this. Otherwise, quotes are attributed and used appropriately. No copyvio. To clarify, this specific part is verified by [2] with its final paragraph. [3] — Source supports Nuketown 2025 information. No copyvio. [6] — Source supports Nuk3town information. No copyvio. [9] — Source supports Nuketown '84 information. Quotes are attributed and used appropriately. No copyvio. [11] — Source supports claim that Nuketown is highly regarded among several outlets. No copyvio. [15] — Source does indeed hate Nuketown. Lame. No copyvio. All content is cited no later than the end of the paragraph it belongs to, and no glaring instances of WP:OVERCITE or WP:BLUE, etc. Most sources are considered reliable according to WP:VG/S, and those that are considered "situational" are used appropriately (e.g. attributed opinion). Everything looks good except for the one.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Don't see anything that violates this.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio check comes back fine, with higher percentages being due to quotations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Focuses on background, design, and reception with little else. Good work!
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral point of view maintained; both positive and negative coverage mentioned in the reception as well.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images used are fair use or public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images provide context to the map itself and the history behind it. Looks good.
	7. Overall assessment.	@NegativeMP1: I got this done really quickly — forget the week, I'll get it done within the day. For now, I'm putting this on hold. The article is very well-written and well-researched, just need some grammar and citation tweaks. I can care of any minor adjustments if requested. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to let me know by pinging me. Thank you for your hard work on this article! I really loved Black Ops as a kid, and learning about one of my favorite maps from it brought me a lot of joy. --Joeyquism (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Joeyquism: Thank you for reviewing this article, especially right on time for the little time I have with laptop internet for the next week. I've addressed all above comments, with an additional comment if changes were made beyond that or if clarification was needed. Thanks again! λ NegativeMP1 01:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1: I just read through the article again and, aside from a very minor touchup on spacing, everything looks great! Passing GA now.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.