Talk:Champion of the Raj/GA1

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs)) 04:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Grabbing this for a review.

Lead

 * Replace the semicolon after factions with a colon
 * Done JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would suggest linking Mogul, Sikhs, and Marathas (but this is merely a suggestion and not a requirement)
 * Done JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove “mostly” and just say “mixed reviews”
 * Good point, done JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Be specific with “various aspects of gameplay”. While this is the Lead, every sentence should be specific and not ambiguous so specify what aspects of gameplay are being praised.
 * I've corrected this. Upon reading it again, most of the gameplay was viewed negatively, so I mentioned that the storyline was praised instead JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Put a semicolon between “gameplay” and “however”
 * Done JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Gameplay

 * Image needs an alt. and I would recommend using "upright"
 * I've added an alt. I don't know if I done something wrong, but every time I added "upright" it appeared to drastically shrink the image, so I was forced to leave that as it was JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would reword the second sentence to avoid repetitive language and be more concise: (Before starting the game, the clay can pick a player-character and side to play.)
 * Rephrased. JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Link Maruthras, Gurkhas, Maharajah, and Sikhs (Again a suggestion, but you can tell me why you would prefer not linking these)
 * Linked all JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Link or specify the meaning behind “chokey” as I am not entirely sure what you are referring to (I could be missing something very obvious).
 * Oops. I didn't know what a chokey was either, but I looked it up and it appears to be slang for "prison cell" (which is what I was expecting, but I thought it was a formal use for something). It's actually Anglo-Indian slang! I've just changed it to "prison cell". JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just say “1800”. The “the year” part is unnecessary and redundant
 * Done JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Specify what you mean by “status”
 * Changed to "popularity" for clarity JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Move the reference on the “game hunting session” to the end of the sentence.
 * Done JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Put a comma after “however”
 * Added JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Replace “has died through assassination” with “is assassinated”
 * Done JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Background

 * Remove comma after England
 * Removed JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Great job with this section. I am very impressed with the research put into this section and the overall article.
 * Thank you! It wasn't easy, but I'm certain that's all of the information that can be found on a small company in the 80s. JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Reception

 * I really like how you separated this section into two clear paragraphs with clearly defined topic sentences.
 * Thanks. I'm glad to see that there were no errors in this section this time. I was expecting this game to have more coverage, but half of the reviews were just snippets. JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Final comments

 * This article is already in great form; my comments are more focus on smaller details and once they are addressed, it will be a quick and easy pass. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for the review! I've addressed all of the above. The majority of the references were scans, which can't be archived, but I did the rest. One of my main interests are in British India and I had high hopes for this game, but when I watched a playthrough video of it on YouTube it turned out to be so bad. I'm glad the article doesn't appear that way, at least! JAG  UAR   21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Great work! And I am glad that my comments could help in some way. I am very impressed with the work put into this article (especially as it is an older game and a majority of the references are scans. I am sorry that you are disappointed in the game, but at least you could make something great out of it! Looking forward to reviewing and reading your future working on here. ✅
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: