Talk:Worms Armageddon
 | Worms Armageddon has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 5, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
 | Worms Armageddon received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | A fact from Worms Armageddon appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 October 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Customization: Limited
[edit]In my N64 version, many of the stated customization possibilities )including the map editor) are unavailible. Is this the same for all N64 copies? 81.16.160.34 (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Rename/move article
[edit]I suggest moving the article to Worms: Armageddon, as the colon is typically added to titles such as these. SharkD (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. A colon is not used on the official website when referring to the game. Some guy (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- More discussion has occured here. SharkD (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
File:Worms Armageddon Game Boy Color screenshot.png
[edit]This article used to have this screenshot, but consensus is to remove the image because it fails WP:NFCC#8, for there has not been a discussion of reviewers describing how the graphics are different from the original's. Actually, there is talk about it now, especially given that IGN described the graphics as "quirky". That said, should the extra screenshots in Elite (video game) be deleted as well because the article does not discuss about reviewers describing the graphics as very different from the original version's? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Worms Armageddon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 05:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll take this one. Be advised I tend to make minor changes myself as I go. If you're unhappy with any change I make just revert it and we'll talk about it instead. :) Freikorp (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
"unless the Select Worm item is used" - I don't think this will make much sense to a person who hasn't played this game, perhaps explain what the select worm item is.Try and avoid writing in brackets unless it is unavoidable. For example the brackets in "(such as collecting a specific crate)" could easily be replaced with a comma.Consider wikilinks for all the various consoles mentioned in the development section"The Nintendo 64 version's multiplayer was developed so that the player could configure virtually everything" - in what way are the configurations different from the other versions?- Are you certain this game was only nominated for/won one award? For a game of its popularity I find that difficult to believe.
- You don't have any information on sales of the game. I.e how many copies of it were sold? Can you find some info on this?
"Worms Armageddon received generally positive reviews from video game critics." Try and avoid one-sentence paragraphs. Perhaps expand this with some common ground - i.e what was it about all versions of the game that received good reviews?"Worms Armageddon has been placed on several lists of the greatest games of all time" - I think this entire paragraph be better placed in the legacy section, your thoughts?
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- Archiving more of the references would be nice but that's not a requirement for GA
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- As per comments in section one.
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- As indicated by talk page and article history.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Having an image from a similar game with identical graphics is something I haven't seen done before, but I don't see a problem with this. Is there any reason you've chosen not to utilise File:WormsArmageddon1.PNG, since that actually is a screenshot from this game?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Well done overall. I made a few changes; they can be seen here: [1] I'm placing this on hold until issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- I am crossing out suggestions that have been fulfilled.
Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)- I am having (and have had) trouble with finding sources that talk about the game's sales as well as sources that are about the nominations of the game. I should probably search harder.
Gamingforfun365 (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)- I just made a brief search myself and I can't find anything either. By all means keep trying, sales information would improve the article, but if the information isn't out there it just isn't out there. Maybe it didn't get nominated for any other awards. I'm happy for this to pass. Freikorp (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am having (and have had) trouble with finding sources that talk about the game's sales as well as sources that are about the nominations of the game. I should probably search harder.
- I am crossing out suggestions that have been fulfilled.
Removal of section about controversy and GOG release date
[edit]I personally think this is an important one, and should definitely remain the part of the article, omitting it leaves its readers without full and pottentially useful additional information about differences between various releases of the game. The reason for reverting mentioned unreliable sources, but i don't think there are better ones, and instead of removing that section, it should've been left until it gets updated with better source references. Please revert it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.203.231 (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)