Talk:Call of Duty: World at War/GA3

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

 :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Issues

 * Though not all editors do, I require alt text for all images in my reviews per WP:ALT
 * The Nintendo DS screenshot needs changed or updated. Click on the image an you'll see why.  All rationales but the game's cover also need to be updated with more than just one-word answers to their criteria.  For example, "Replaceable" shouldn't say "No", but something like "No free images have been released to replace this image".
 * ✅ There are two disambig links that need fixed
 * It looks like there are two dead references
 * References need to have a consistent date format. Some are MM DD, YYYY, most are YYYY-MM-DD.  I would recommend YYYY-MM-DD for all dates in the refs.
 * All www.callofduty.com references redirect to an age input page. If you can find other sources to replace them, I'd strongly recommend it.

I'd say the issues are really minor. The article reads really well and flows nicely. Criteria #5 (Stability) is a tiny bit iffy with the recent IP edit reverts, but I don't think it'll fail the article unless the IP edits go nuts in the next week.

As per the standard, I'm giving one week for updates to be made before a pass/fail is given.

Reviewer: Teancum (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Second opinions
-- Sabre (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * the poor flowing and far too long synopsis section: 6 paragraphs, over 900 words, mission-by-mission with all sorts of unnecessary trivialities. 1a and 3b
 * the lack of development information for a high-profile mainstream game, though some sources were pointed to in previous GANs. 3a
 * the reception section for a game of this profile built around essentially only four reviews (GameSpot, 1UP, IGN and OXM), far from being a comprehensive analysis of critical opinion. For more obscure subjects, small numbers of reviews can be accepted, but this is a high-profile mainstream game with plenty of reviews available. 3a
 * the presence of five non-free screenshots with poor captioning and none of them having a solid rationale to justify their presence. You've already picked up on this to an extent in the review. One screenshot is usually enough, two if really necessary, but five? 6a and 6b

Please note that I stand by these issues too. Sabre pointed them out and I have pasted them here to add to the review, as they are all good points that I hadn't considered. These will be considered required for passing the GAN. --Teancum (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On ths issue of reviewing non-free content, I have considered those images which are neccessary for an aritlce on a video game and I think I come out with about three that should stay: the box art, the gameplay picture "Gameplay in online multiplayer's War mode", and the Nintendo DS version "The graphics and gameplay shown on the Nintendo DS version". What are your thoughts to removing the rest of them and just leaving the ones listed above?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The box art always stays, so that's fine. The other two I'm fine with, IF a non-watermark replacement for the DS screenshot can be found. --Teancum (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd go with an SP image that bests demonstrates both graphics and the "gritty, dark side of war" that is alleged in the intro, personally, rather than a MP image. Go with a screenshot that shows a subject that is covered in critical commentary: you can generate a far stronger rationale and accompanying caption that way. -- Sabre (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately due to the edit wars/vandalism and the fact that only a few issues have been addressed, I'm going to go ahead and Fail this article. Feel free to resubmit it once the updates are made. --Teancum (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)