Talk:Atmosfear (series)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: KnowIG (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost. What is this game series about. What genre is it. Secondly in the lead do we need to privlige the desingers and have their history there. I'm considering quick failing this. Just because I haven't got a foggest of what the game series is. Apart from being designed by Australian's and using a traditional board and mulitmedia. Nowhere in any section does it tell me the reader what genre and what the game is about. Apart from the generic stuff I said above. But I'll be fair and give you time to turn this around before I apply the quick fail test. I'll give you a day KnowIG (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for giving me 24 hours. I have expanded the lead. -- d'oh! [talk] 03:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments. Still barely above "Start" class in my book, since the article does not provide an adequate overview of the subject covering all the major issues. Description of the game needs to be supported by independent reliable sources, and at present seems solely based on personal experience (otherwise known as original research). Also should have a complete section on the game and gameplay as the individual editions seems to, not just a short synopsis in the lead which still does little to enlighten the reader. Also the lead is a bit choppy so it doesn't really flow, and contains trivial details while excluding major points. We also do not use first names – last names only after first mention, when the full name is used, unless there is ambiguity. wjemather bigissue 20:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the point. I was reviewing it. KnowIG (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's well sourced. Start I don't think so. Erm lead remove the creator stuff. Also list each game in the final paragraph, keep what you have there. Secondly what makes each game different e.g. genre. One a western one a sci fi you get what I mean. Personal section of game creators. Why....KnowIG (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, as I'm sure you know, anyone is free to add their review, but the final decision is that of the first reviewer – in this case, you. Secondly, without a resonably comprehensive gameplay section, the article does not adequately cover the subject. Sure it does a good job on the history of the series, but in my book it completely neglects the major aspect of the topic. As I say it's just my opinion and in the end, it's your call. wjemather bigissue 21:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a bit funny I get a message and you appear. That's all. Secondly I am trying to get the user to address the basics. E.g. what each genre is. But there is not a lot on the game play. We shall see what gets said. But I may loose faith with this. KnowIG (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, your talk page has been on my watch list ever since I commented there. Sure, basics are good, but articles need plenty more than that to get to GA status. Yeah, I don't think your original concerns were fully addressed and it may have had it's chance for now – a single, solitary, lonely edit since the review started says it all really. wjemather bigissue 21:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you can understand this review came out of nowhere for me since I put it up three months ago and at the worst time as I have ton of Uni work to do. So yes my edits to this article is low but it doesn't mean I am don't care about it. I am going as fast as I can to address the concerns rised here. -- d'oh! [talk] 03:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling its nightmare finishing a degree. KnowIG (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article to address both of your concerns. -- d'oh! [talk] 03:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

1.Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]

2.Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[3] and

(c) it contains no original research.

3.Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[4] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5]

6.Illustrated, if possible, by images:[6]

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[7]

Mainly fail because lack of detail about what each game encompasses. E.g. genre what makes each game different from others in the series. Nothings been done no one has helped you. I suggest you sort it out before coming back to GA so I will fail it due to lack of wrok and the fact that nom is busy.