Talk:Core War/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 18:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Failed review because user is not a regular who would be able to improve article as required, and the article is currently failing every GA criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a regular editor, I just haven't got an account. If you're willing to identify areas which need improvement I'm willing to make those improvements. "every GA criteria"? I thought perhaps it would meet criteria 3-6 91.125.195.158 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok good to know, I implore you to create an account, otherwise it is confusing to see ip addresses nominating articles. I'll review the article today, it may require a lot of improvement, but it should be doable. Thank you! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok here it is, this is a good start. Do these things, the we'll look at referencing, content and prose more closely, but we can do this!

Let me know if you need help or have questions. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'm slowly working through your recommendations. References are more or less done. Next I'm researching for the reception section. 87.115.125.6 (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Quick update: I'm still researching for the reception section. Most of the reference material isn't available online so I'm searching through the old newsletters, etc. 87.114.149.18 (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep it up! I will wait. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Any news? Find any reception info? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've found all the details in The Armchair Universe and early issues of The Core War Newsletter (neither available online). I just need to write it up as soon as I get chance. 146.90.131.109 (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Since we have been reviewing a month, and there is still a lot to do, how about we close this review and keep working, and then we can renominate when it's ready and I'm sure it will be quickly approved. Sound good? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm ending this review now, so lets work on it again when you get the chance. Leave a note on my user page! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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.	The structure is bullet points and lists, that must be made into prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This is a big one, the article needs to have all that bolder text and bullet points turned into paragraphs. Take a look at any GA and you'll see what it looks like; paragraphs with minimal building. Also, you need a reception section, so that we can know what people thought of the game, and what legacy and influence it had on programming or games that followed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Probably will need more references once you prosify the article.
	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).	The article has half it's references properly cited, with access dates, authors, links, publication names, etc, but the Upper half are just external links with names. They all have to be properly formatted.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Seems like it is referenced.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Needs a reception section as noted above.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Do you have a logo for this game? I see a screenshot, if there is a logo use it in the template box and put the screenshot in the article.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See above note though
	7. Overall assessment.