Talk:Bloons Tower Defense/GA1

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What can make this better is more information and more citations.Order of the sword (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Order of the sword

Good Article Checklist
 * Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 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; and it contains no original research.
 * Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Comments:This article could potentially meet several points of the quick fail criteria, but I will hold it for a week just in case. The main issue is the lack of development which is completely non-existent as this point and the other article does contain the basic beginnings of the a proper development section. This article also has issues meeting the broad and focused aspects of the GA assessment. This article is a smaller portion of the Bloons line of games, but the section on TD2 is shorter than a stub should be. Its content is a single sentence. The prose is also a problem, with many of the sentences being choppy. This article is like a start or C class as it stands right now and I think it will be very hard to fix this in the time. Though I did make you wait quite awhile for the review, so I can give it two weeks to be fair. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Disambig links: No issues
 * Reference check: One issue
 * 1) Daemon's Take on Bloons Tower Defense 3 - Web Games Feature at IGN (info) [ign.com] - Redirects. Essentially 404ed.

Checklist

 * Dead URL
 * ✅ - Added an archive URL. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Development section
 * I'm at an impasse with this one. I can't find any information on the development as sources generally only covered the games themselves. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think can be done ? Samwalton9 (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Broad/Focused issues including small TD2 section
 * I think I'll just remove the TD2 heading and make it TD1&2 as a section. Makes sense seeing as 2 was just a small update to 1. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Samwalton9 (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Prose
 * Will take a look at this now. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is just really lacking without details, this article tells nothing of its availability its marketing its specials or features on websites such as Kongregate. Each game is given no real details or coverage, each one is less than a stub by itself. I don't think there is enough content to make GA as a result. The reader doesn't get much more then "it exists, you pop balloons and it released on this date" for each of the games. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I actually went out and played one of the games to see what is missing from this. And its a lot. The gameplay aspects alone could be given their own section and this is not really trivial stuff. I simply believe that even the basic game functions are being omitted and so is the distribution and other aspects. I do not think I can pass this without a substantial amount of coverage being added. It is just too bare bones. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean the gameplay aspects for each game? Regardless I think we've run out of coverage for now and have agree that it's fine if you fail the GAN. Doesn't look like we're going to find any sources for expansion any time soon. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you sure there aren't reviews, manuals, or in-game dialogue that can be used to cite gameplay aspects? I find those all very helpful. Tezero (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we've used reviews as much as possible. Manuals and in-game things I hadn't considered for gameplay but that doesn't solve the lack of development section problem unfortunately. Thanks for the advice though. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Something else that needs to be mentioned is that there's no Development section. You at least want to have a BS Development section if you can't find interviews or primary sources, as is the case in Digimon Racing, for example. Tezero (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)