Talk:Warhawk (2007 video game)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWarhawk (2007 video game) 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 19, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
December 2, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 19, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 9, 2008Good article nomineeListed
June 13, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Incognito Company Problems[edit]

(NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED AND CITED BEFORE ADDED BACK TO MAIN ARTICLE) According to the message, Incognito took several losses starting eight months ago. In one instance, 12-15 people supposedly jumped ship to another development studio when Scott Campbell and David Jaffe formed Eat, Sleep, Play. Soon after, around 30 people moved to Salt Lake City's Disney Studio.

As of today, only Dylan Jobe, Bruce Woodward, Evan Christiansen, Lars Devore, John Crocker, and Nate Robins are left to maintain Warhawk. Three of them are programmers and two are animators. The man who was supposed to be the lead network programmer, Kirk Baum, left one week before the game went gold.

"About a year ago there were close to 70 employees there," stated the supposed message from the former Incognito person. Having only six people to work on a gigantic online game sounds like a feasible excuse for network problems, but without further confirmation, we'll have to tag this under rumor.

Some network issues in Warhawk are yet to be fixed, but the folks from Incognito Entertainment are hard at work in hunting down all the bugs... They could use some slack though, as word has it that only six people are currently working for the company. A poster from NeoGAF forums claims he received a private message (PM) from a former Incognito employee who shed light on what's going on behind Warhawk's battlelines.

Sorry, but we are not fans here - we are an online encyclopedia. We have no slack. This also means we aren't going to to roast them ove the fire, either. Someone should confirm that 6 people are working on it, and please, please, please do not use or formulate statments basd on forums. People lie like rugs there, jus to make themselves feel all important and involved. As well, we cannot cite from forums or blogs and whatnot, unless it is the confirmed blog of the owner or developer. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh......no. Incog is not a 6 man team. They have way too many in-house testers just for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDaBucket (talk • contribs) 12:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAC[edit]

I'm quickfailing this article this article for good article-ship, as it's a stub for an unreleased video game coming out in 10 days. Please read the criteria for GA again before nominating this or any other article. --PresN 00:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Headset[edit]

The headset that came with my game is the 135, not the 125...? Did other places(im in Ireland) get other models? John.n-irl 00:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People in America got the 125. -- Vdub49 02:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EU gets 135, everyone else got 125. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDaBucket (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA comment[edit]

With a quick glance over the article, there are a few things that need to be fixed or the article will be quick-failed. None of the images have fair use rationales stating the rationale for using the images in the article. Look to similar GA/FAs for examples. Additionally, the images generally do not have any sources and it is likely that the article includes too many non-free images within the article. Consider removing some and addressing the source/FU issues. The lead should also be expanded more to better summarize the article, see WP:LEAD for more assistance. It would also be benefical if the incline citations used the templates at WP:CITET which would add the aruthor, access date, etc. Address these issues soon, as the reviewing editor can quick-fail the article over these issues. Let me know if you have any questions on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 07:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

Upon its review on October 21, 2007, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. Tags have been there for a few days, and the article has been edited a lot since then - yet the tags remain I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Cheers, CP 18:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

requested move[edit]

Most people look for the PlayStation 3 game then others listed, while Warhawk (disambiguation) can list all of them.--Playstationdude 23:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what are you saying, is it if someone types in "warhawk" it should go to the PS3 version? -- Vdub49 01:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what your saying, please explain. -- Vdub49 21:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What is your source that most people typing "Warhawk" would be looking for the PS3 game?. I think the chances are very high that people would be looking for the PS games, the character from the DC Animated Universe, or other things. Warhawk should remain a disambiguation page since it's not the primary usage. TJ Spyke 00:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - a classic case of recentism. In fact, "warhawk" should redirect to "war hawk". Reginmund 04:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw what you did and fixed it, Reginmund. He made the redirect to "war hawk" without telling anyone. I just fixed it.--Playstationdude 13:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC
Also make sure you put you opinion on this below the topic's nomination on the wp:rm page.--Playstationdude 13:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw what you did and fixed it Playstationdude. He made the redirect to "Warhawk (disambiguation)" without telling anyone. I just fixed it. Reginmund 22:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I believe War Hawk has a stronger case for being the primary article. Pagrashtak 16:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose war hawk or the fighter plane would be the most likely search term. 132.205.99.122 19:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will just take it off.--Playstationdude 22:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - It's good the way it is. All things named warhawk seem to be legitimately equal in importance, seeing as 3 are video games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDaBucket (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? {{{stable}}}
6. Images?: Pass

An excellent article. Very well written, no cleanup tags, and a NPOV kept throughout. Good job! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Ejg930 01:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG assessment[edit]

Ouch. Though it pains me to do so, I'm going to un-GA this article. It's no so much that this article has become far worse in the space of two weeks, but there were and are numerous problems with this article which mean it should've been failed on sight. Let's look at the GA criteria and what needs doing:

1. Well written?: Fail
  • Lead needs expansion per WP:LS - summarise the whole article in 2-4 paragraphs.
  • All one- and two-sentence paragraphs should be merged. A large number of short paragraphs don't make for smooth reading.
  • Network issues section should be a subsection of Reception, not of Development.
  • Too many lists. Most of these lists can just be deleted as they don't have any encyclopedic value, but if not then convert the lists to regular paragraphed prose. Aside from anything else, it looks and reads much better.
2. Factually accurate?: Fail
  • Vast swathes of text are unsourced. Everything should be sourced with reliable sources.
3. Broad in coverage?: Fail
  • The Gameplay section is too game guide-esque. There's no need for an encyclopedia article to describe each type of turret and what it does. A good guideline for writing this section is to only include information which will be useful to someone who doesn't play the game.
  • The Updates/Expansion section violates WP:NOT#INFO - this information is more suited to a fansite or game guide, no an encyclopedia article. You could summarise all the information in two or three paragraphs in the Development section. There's no need to do include any more than the following:
  • Release dates for the patches and summarising their content. Example: "Patches 1.1 and 1.2 were released on 19 October 2007 and 22 October 2007 respectively, fixing numerous exploits and stability issues."
  • Arbiters can be summarised in a couple of sentences, just say when and what. No need for excessive and unnecessary quoting.
  • An expansion pack was released on [date] at a price of GBP 3.99, USD 7.99 and EUR 5.99. It includes a new map and a new vehicle.
  • The Reception section doesn't go into enough detail - see below for more on this.
  • The list of network issues in the Development section should go, for the reasons given above.
4. Neutral point of view?: Fail
  • There's a [opinion needs balancing] tag in the Reception section. Rather than opening with "So far, the game has received very positive reviews with the exception of PSM." (currently unsourced) you could open with "The game generally received positive/negative reviews, with an aggregate score of xx/100 from Metacritic and xx/100 from GameRankings." which is easy to source.
  • The reception section also doesn't go into enough detail: it gives different review scores and brief comments, but never actually says what is was about the game which meant it attained those scores. Have a look at the Reception sections at WP:VG#Example articles to get an idea of what to include.
5. Article stability? {{{stable}}}
6. Images?: Pass, though the article could do with a few more images. If you do insert a few more, remember to ensure each one shows some different aspect of the game, else it might violate fair use.

So, this is still Start-Class. Address all these points and you should have a GA-class article. If you have any queries don't hesitate to ask. Hope this helps, Una LagunaTalk 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation: Broken Mirror and 1.3[edit]

This should be added as version 1.3, Coming out on March 20 Woops, i think i broke it, sorry

I have only been able to find speculation that it has to do with v1.3, so I think it should just stick with O:BM. I also fixed the table for you. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cant find a link for the Operation: Broken Mirror name, the site originally reporting it has since pulled the page (play3-live). Everything on this seems to be from forums. John.n-irl (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but i think it is quite probable that this operation broken mirror is true because it will be over 3 months since the last update so it seems likely that an update will be around that time. So i think Broken Mirror is all fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonapello22 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is true, but not that it is the same thing as v1.3. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think it should be included in the article because we have no source. And you cant assume its true based on timing, they gave plenty of notice about Omega Dawn. John.n-irl (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sweet I called it! VERSION 1.3 [1] When you click on the, rock on, it shows a broken mirror If you look at the servers from the link, the third one down, it says Vaporfield GL... which is probably Vaporfield Glaciers, a new ice map I am quite updated on Warhawk if i say so myself. I also updated the broken mirror section so it shows the new map and information about it,Jonapello22 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gl != Glaciers, and the blog is just a random section of the article with a pic of the bio-field generator, two guys and some info on Home integration. The Kotaku source is also not a valid one as there is no info in the pic except a map(which would appear to be from the single player campaign as it is not symmetrical like all the others), and any info that may have been in that article was blurred out from the pics. If i missed something feel free to correct me. john.n-irl (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the beauty of it, its not from the single player campaign because its from january of this year! SO ha, and the white board is blurred out on purpose, so what does that tell you, hmmmmmmmmmm, : ) Jonapello22 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious, the map could have been made at any time, its not hard to open the image up when the developers new the pic was going to be taken. john.n-irl (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would he be working on an old map? So yeah, im being serious!Jonapello22 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said he was working on it, it was just on the screen. I know where your coming from, but its not a reliable source. Especially for the Glacier part, thats based on the first two letters..I agree its the most likely but its just not enough for the site. We have to wait untill there is an official announcement. And that Kotaku picture is quite old anyway. john.n-irl (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to fix the open mic part in 1.3, thats not what open mic means Jonapello22 (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Everyone can speak is what youre saying right now[reply]

HAAAAA haa i told you so John n irl, i told you there will be a new map and vehicle, but noooo. You said thats from the single player, well i proved you wrongJonapello22 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err...no not really. Is that map confirmed yet as the new one anyway? Apparently you are unfamiliar with how encyclopedias work, its not the most likely. Its what is confirmed, feel free to read this and this. Also if you type colon before your comments its easier to follow talk pages. Enjoyed editing with ya. :) john.n-irl (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silencio!!!!! Jeez. Ok now i will provide you people with a link to another date from a video game website, this one seems more reliable http://ps3.qj.net/SCEA-PSN-redesign-in-April-Warhawk-expansion-more/pg/49/aid/115114 I'm going to change the date to April 15th for both 1.3 and broken mirror, and btw john, yeah vaporfield glaciers is coming to warhawk i'm sorry, before i got the wrong link i didn't know that you couldn't see the server list. http://blog.us.playstation.com/2008/02/15/warhawk-v13-patch/ go there Jonapello22 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also the april 15th date i added is kinda just a place holder for it so as of right now, it is the most accurate, so just leave it up there please Jonapello22 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, wikipedia doesnt do placeholders, also that article is not a source for the 15th, it doesnt say it. And still no source for "vaporfield glaciers". Im not trying to annoy ya mate, but without a source its not really for the article john.n-irl (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


John!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please read the link i provided about dylan jobe's blog, it shows a list of servers, the third from the bottom, i think, it shows Vaporfield Gl......... I don't see what's not to believe, and so far all of my info about 1.3 (except for my release date) has been announced right after i say it on this discussion, so don't you think i'm reliable? And don't go all wikipedia lingo on me saying that you need an official announcement, just try and believe me here, alright? Jonapello22 (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is alot of exclamation marks... :) I know about the server list, i read the blog post too. However reading between the lines(literally and figuratively) just wont do as a source for an article. While I believe you are correct, I do not believe it should be in the article. There is no need to jump the gun about this, as you said "[stuff]has been announced right after i say it", why not wait untill its announced. Better correct than early. And if you are implying you have some "insider" knowledge about Warhawk, your into the realm of original research. john.n-irl (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Fine, don't believe me, but when 1.3 comes around and you see Vaporfield Glaciers or Glades, you'll be sorry Jonapello22 (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, your edits on talk pages are starting to get a bit dodgy(Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks), both here and on other pages. Tone it down please. And its not that i dis-believe you, just we have no source. john.n-irl (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaporfield Glaciers. Only Incog employees have seen it. Press only gets to use the 1.3 patched software and the APC from the booster pack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDaBucket (talk • contribs) 12:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with references[edit]

I think I messed up the references, I tried to add two references and whoever helps me dont get rid of the websites but just assist me in what i did wrong, Sorry! Jonapello22 (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. You are supposed to have in-text citations as I did. If I incorrectly cited anything, please change it. I'm not sure where you got the new ship or free expansion though... MrKIA11 (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you get rid of dylan jobes blog and the kotaku website? Jonapello22 (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. From what I could tell, the kotaku website was only being used to show the picture, so it is linked in the description of O:BM, and his blog is ref #7. The page automatically orders the refs in order that they appear on the page. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates/Expansions rewrite[edit]

I am currently re-writing this section, it is currently a bit too un-encyclopedic(as the tag indicates). However this will require the removal of large amounts of info. For example i do not feel it is necessary to say "Separate SIXAXIS motion control on/off per mode (ground, hover, flight)", this will probably need more work after but hopefully its a start. john.n-irl (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I have made are based upon similar articles which have received featured status. Particularly the Halo articles. I have also removed the relevance tag. john.n-irl (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay[edit]

The gameplay section needs some work, however I cant see how to include stuff such as the info on the game engine without it standing out(as it does now). john.n-irl (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAN on Hold[edit]

  1. Well written?: Fail — The current laytout of the article makes it difficult to read and the text could use some copy editing.
  2. Factually accurate?: Borderline — I'm sure the content is correct, but the lack of sources on some statements gives no way to verify the content.
  3. Broad in coverage?: Pass — The normal and necessary aspects of a video article are covered.
  4. Neutral point of view?: Pass — Does not appear to be pushing a particular point of view
  5. Article stability? Pass — The do not appear to be any edit wars or excessive amounts of changes/updates.
  6. Images?: Pass — All images have a suitable fair use rationale. But the images are not properly staggered throughout the article

Further comments:

My main concerns with the article are the organization of the content and some unsourced content. Traditionally gameplay info has been put before development info (See WP:VG/GL#Organization). Some sections should be combined and rearranged to help improve the flow and readability. Additional sources/citations would help too.
  • Move the "Gameplay" section up to be the first section.
  • The text in the "Gameplay" section looks a bit choppy.
    • The statement "and there is no further storyline or back-story provided" sounds a bit awkward.
    • The mention of the DualShock3 at the end looks tacked on. I'd move it to the other info about gameplay control.
    • The info about the achievements and Arbiters should be combined into one paragraph. Also, per WP:MOS, Arbitet should not be in bold text.
  • Left align the splitscreen image, right align the arbiter image, and left align the new map/vehicle image.
  • The "Release" section should be a subsection of the "Development" section.
  • The "Updates" and "Expansion" sections should be combined into one section titled "Updates and expansions", and the moved to become a second subsection of the "Development" section.
Several issues from the GAR have not been addressed
  • "All one- and two-sentence paragraphs should be merged. A large number of short paragraphs don't make for smooth reading."
  • "Release dates for the patches and summarising their content. Example: 'Patches 1.1 and 1.2 were released on 19 October 2007 and 22 October 2007 respectively, fixing numerous exploits and stability issues.'"
The reception section could use some tidying up.
  • I would remove some of the review scores. Less than 8 scores plus 2 aggregate scores are normally all that is needed to give a general overview.
  • With review scores listed in the table, it is not necessary to mention them in the text. I'd remove them.
  • Why does Adam Sessler from X-Play say "...I wouldn't have it any other way"? What does he not want changed?
  • More sources/citations would help.
Some the sources do not appear to be reliable sources
  • Refs 16, 20, 22, 23, and 24 are a blog postings. Though the blog.us.playstation ones may be acceptable. I'll look into it.
  • Ref 19 lists Joystiq as the publisher, but is not a Joystiq article.
  • Side note: there seems to be something wrong with the formating on ref 24.
I'd suggest finding some articles from IGN and Joystiq. Between the two of those sites, you should be able to source everything in the article. A listing of IGN reviews, previews, news, and features can be found here [2], and a listing of Joystiq articles can be found here [3].

Per GAN, the editors of this article have 7 days to address the issues above. If you have any questions, please feel to ask them here; I'll have this page watched. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Looks like the article is making some progress. Keep up the good work editors.
Regarding the blog.us.playstation citations. They should be acceptable exceptions under WP:SELFPUB and WP:SPS. Though the "ThreeSpeech" citation (previously ref 16, now ref 24) does not qualify as a reliable source and will have to be removed. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Are you sure about threespeech? It's semi-official with Sony.--Playstationdude (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which unfortunately makes it only semi-reliable. The PS blogs are already somewhat borderline with the fact they are blogs. I'd say it's better safe than sorry and leave it out. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The thing with the ThreeSpeech ref is that it is a source pointing to some of the "confusion" which was around prior to the games release. I can see a official source saying this. Iv taken it out, replaced it with a Kotaku one. John.n-irl (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything we're missing?--Playstationdude (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give the article another read and post back later today. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry, I got tied up with something yesterday; I'll give y'all an extra day. Here are a few issues more issues.
  • From the GAR, "All one- and two-sentence paragraphs should be merged. A large number of short paragraphs don't make for smooth reading."
    There are a few of these in the lead, the arbitrator content, a single sentence in the "Reception" section.
Fixed--Playstationdude (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, the sentence "It was released in 2007; For the USA..." is a bit awkward because the proceeding info is too long to use a semicolon. I would get rid of the first part and use full dates for the rest.
Fixed--Playstationdude (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would tweak this sentence some. "Warhawk was initially intended to have both single-player and multiplayer modes..."
Fixed--Playstationdude (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it "Blu-ray Disc" or "Blu-ray disc"
Blu-ray Disc.Fixed--Playstationdude (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still some sections that should have a citation.
  • The "Reception" section still has some review scores in the prose. They're not need with the review score table.
Confused by what you're saying.--Playstationdude (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed--Playstationdude (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has really shaped up nicely and is pretty close to passing, keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Clarifying- The review table lists a score; for example, IGN 8.8/10. The text in then section then states "IGN reviewers gave the game an 8.8/10 and..." This part in the text is redundant and not needed because the review table already clarified this. (Guyinblack25 talk 12:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Can you give a list of needed citations?--Playstationdude (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citations-
  • The entire "Gameplay" section only has two citations for the controllers that are used. Everything else should be sourced as well.
  • "...disc-only version of the game (without the Bluetooth headset) was released to North American consumers." needs a ref.
  • "Warhawk updates are free, but expansion packs are..." and the proceeding sentences need a ref(s).
I'm sure most of it can be sourced with the sources currently in the "References" section. They just need to a citation added.
Also there are still several game scores in the text of the "Reception" section. With the numerous review scores in the table, they do not need to be included in the text of the section. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
It has been a week now and the article is pretty close to passing. Here is a list of outstanding issues that need to be addressed before I can pass the article.
  • The "Gameplay" section is still largely unsourced.
  • The Arbitrator image doesn't really add much to the article. It might be best to remove it. This should also take care of the awkward layout of the "Gameplay" section
  • The follow statements need refs. "...disc-only version of the game (without the Bluetooth headset) was released to North American consumers." and "Warhawk updates are free, but expansion packs are..." and the proceeding sentences.
  • There are several redundant review scores in the text of the "Reception" section.
As I've said, the article is very close to passing and I'd hate fail it because of a small list of minor issues. I'll check in this evening to finish up the nomination. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Everything's been fixed except the review thing. Kinda of confused about that still. Sorry about all the questions. If you reply tonight, I can get this in GA mode today.--Playstationdude (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your review section paragraph you write statements, like "Game Informer reviewed Warhawk and awarded it with a score of 8.25/10". The review table on the left already lists Game Informer's score of 8.25/10. Thus, it is redundant and needs to be removed. There are several of these redundancies that need to be addressed. Good luck. -- Noj r (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as Noj pointed out, it is redundant because it states the same information twice in the same section. Once in the Reviews table, and again in the text of section. The scores that should be removed in the text are from Metacritic, Game Rankings, PSM, 1UP.com, and GameInformer. Does that clear things up? (Guyinblack25 talk 23:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I dont agree that there should be no scores in this section, particularly for the metacritic/game ranking(since they sum up the info), and the PSM score(it being the lowest, since it receives extra comment). I also think one other score later on helps with the flow of the section. I am aware that we do not want to repeat information on the page, but putting something in the body of a page which is also in a table it is beside is not uncommon in Wikipedia, as the two are used for different purposes(easily read, clear, facts, and more expanded explanations). However I have removed/reworded these scores, I guess you guys know this better than I. John.n-irl (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Pass[edit]

  1. Well written?: Pass — The article has been greatly improved and meets the standards for GA .
  2. Factually accurate?: Pass — Additional sources and citations have been added.
  3. Broad in coverage?: Pass — The normal and necessary aspects of a video article are covered.
  4. Neutral point of view?: Pass — Does not appear to be pushing a particular point of view
  5. Article stability? Pass — There do not appear to be any edit wars or excessive amounts of changes/updates.
  6. Images?: Pass — All images have a suitable fair use rationale. But the images are not properly staggered throughout the article
Comments

Excellent job cleaning up the article editors. Keep up the good work. Here are some general suggestions to further improve the article to help maintain its GA status or to get it to FA.

  • The article could use some copy editing for grammar and flow. The writing in it is much better now, but not quite FA quality. WP:FAC has been a much more strict about the quality of writing and some article have failed because of this.
  • A peer review could be of great help. A peer review can be done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review and/or Wikipedia:Peer review.
  • I would expand the reception section more with sales figures, additional awards, and comments about specific aspects of the game; graphics, audio, etc.
  • Find more reliable sources and cite everything. It will only strengthen the article.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review (Guyinblack25 talk 00:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Archive[edit]

I am going to archive some of the older discussions on this talk page, and since there has been no archive previously I am going to mention it here first to see ifa nyone has any objection or comments and to reach a consensus on timing. I was thinking of anything over two months, and since the article just reached GA I was thinking of keeping the old GA sections so as to allow for anyone reviewing the nomination to easily see where its coming from, they could be archived at a later date. John.n-irl (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trophies[edit]

Because trophies are rumored to come out in June sometime around june 12 which is the date of MGS4 we should add the section to the page.

http://sev1512.wordpress.com/2008/05/18/insider-exclusive-information-about-240-and-beyond/ http://n4g.com/ps3/News-146904.aspx http://www.psu.com/[UPDATED]-PlayStation-trophies-to-hit-in-June--a0003642-p0.php

Just saying....

Jonapello22 (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they are released for Warhawk, we should mention that it has been updated but not list available trophies. John.n-IRL 09:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, all of those links seem to fail wp:rs, since two are user submitted and psu is based on a thread... John.n-IRL 09:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
we're going to have to wait for them to come up or an official press release--Playstationdude (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one? http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/3069.html Jonapello22 (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its the err...exact same story, citing the same "sources". John.n-IRL 22:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10483&Itemid=52 How about this one? Jonapello22 (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... Every developer is now saying it's coming out in June. Also on a side note, it is supposed to be on either june 10 or 18th. Jonapello22 (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chart/Table for Warhawk Patches[edit]

I think that the Warhawk patches should be organized into a table similar to the one in the PS3 system software article. The article is currently cluttered and it is difficult to get to the information quickly. The expansion packs can be left inside the paragraph but the updates should really be included into their own section (I'd recommend a table organization, but that's not important, just the ease with which information can be found in the article is what matters). I am not yet too familiar with wikipedia tables so if someone else more skilled than me here could please step in to create said table. Hopefully, I can get the hang of it quickly so I can do it before someone else.A. Rafey (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did that once and I forgot why we took it down.--Playstationdude (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment?[edit]

I'd like to suggest reassessment for this article, as I don't think it is up to the standard of a Good Article. I have removed the incredibly long and unencyclopedic game-guide-like Weapons section, and made the game launching section into a sub-section. A number of unreferenced statements have been added since it passed its nomination (diff). The reception section is small, and though most of the prose is referenced the table of review scores is not. Some of the prose feels a little unfocused or not particularly concise, such as in the update/expansion section, drifting into technical details of the updates without giving a clear overview, or adding very specific in-game detail in parenthesis in the gameplay section without first giving a clear overview of the game. SynergyBlades (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


i heard there a sequal to warhawk called starhawk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.250.128 (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Game Launching" segment[edit]

This section is written like a review and not like an encyclopedia. 72.192.55.156 (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sequel[edit]

http://www.gamegrep.com/news/19615-new_trademark_made_by_sony_starhawk_sounds_familiar_doesnt_it/ http://kotaku.com/5176896/warhawk-in-spaaaaaace None of it seems to be confirmed, except for the starhawk trademark by Sony as far as I've read. That could mean possible sequel, or another possible expansion. Though if a title called starhawk is released, it may have absolutely nothing to do with Warhawk... the similarity in name choice says other wise though. Anyway, Is it worth mentioning in the main article? - 99.249.102.39 (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment fo GA status[edit]

I know what it is like to play a game and add in all the details, but seriously as somewhat older now I have come back to this article after years and think it needs a reassessment. It is not very well written and sections are all over the place or incomplete. Fans may continue to add in unneeded details and without regular maintenance it may slip. JTBX (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Warhawk (2007 video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Warhawk (2007 video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

War hawk[edit]

You are invited to participate in Talk:War hawk#Requested move 21 May 2019 about whether War hawk should be moved to Hawk (foreign policy). R2 (bleep) 16:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely not Geodude86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warhawk_(2007_video_game)&oldid=1205416744"