Talk:Civilization IV/GA1

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

Reviewer: Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs) 23:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * First thing I notice, even as a gamer, is the use of 4X. I've never heard that term before and so I doubt any non-gamer and even just any non-strategy gamer will understand it. It seems needlessly obtuse. Link to it by all means but give it a more descriptive link, if it is a sub genre of strategy games, make the link say strategy game. Or move 4x further down the lead where it can be briefly explained what type of strategy game this means Civ 4 is.
 * I, Mr. Gonna, joined in the GA review just to add the definition of the 4X game in the top paragraph of the "Gamplay" section. This is just minor, since I'm not the nominator. &#124;&#62;(@&#34;&#60;) (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The game is said to have received universal acclaim, but the reception section is incredibly small, this could do with some small expansion of positive and negative reviews for neutrality.


 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Remove the following duplicate links:
 * Lead - turn based strategy / firaxis games
 * Resources and buildings - technology tree
 * Technology, government and religion - technology tree
 * Customization - XML
 * Production and development - technology tree
 * Release - Firaxis games
 * Reception - engine, IGN, GameSpot, multiplayer
 * Per the Template: Infobox video game guidelines, crew should be limited to the lead people, lead designer, not sound and additional, lead artist, not ui artist. If these people are notable and you want to mention them, mention them in the prose. Paul Murphy is listed as the only writer, he doesn't need (lead) by his name.
 * Replace CD (2), DVD (1), with simple "Optical disk"
 * References should not be in hte lead, they should be in the prose.


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * 2) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Image is being deleted -
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Image is being deleted -
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Image is being deleted -
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Thanks for the review! I admit since having only played the game twice, I'm not familiar with some of the video game terminology but I understand a lot of the concepts that are more familiar to real-time strategy rather than turn-based strategy games. In any case I have no idea what 4X means either (and I'll get back to reviewing the article on 4X, so maybe we could ask some of the other fellow editors at WP:Video games to chime in? TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 00:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh just FYI, there was a lot more additional information that I took out while in the midst of rewriting the article, and I took out chunks of sections and saved so that the entire section could be undone in one edit if need be, while keeping the rest of the rewriting intact. Can you please also review some of my edits to see if any of them deleted information you might think warrant inclusion in the article that I've accidentally left out? I've deleted mostly what I thought of as trivia, but if you decide its notable I might work to reword it back into some encyclopedic way. Also, I'd appreciate more than one set of fresh eyes, maybe we could have a larger group of GA-video games people working on this. Not to imply that your review isn't any way bad per se, it's just that I feel having only two editors handle an article as large as this feels quite daunting. TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 00:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I nominated that image for deletion myself, considering I didn't see a single bit of encyclopedic value in it. TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 00:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the removed content I don't think there is any loss there and the improvements made to referencing for instance are really good. I think there is a way to put a GA on hold pending further opinions, I will look into it. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 19:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I did some more rewrite work up today here to try to prop up the reception section. Can you do a re-review to see if it still has the same problems? (I guess I'm a bad judge/reader of how my article is supposed to look like when I made the "universal acclaim" addition.) Again, thanks for taking the time to review! TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 08:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The changes make a big improvement. For critical reception, the only thing I'd say is go into a little more detail with some of them, for example "Game Revolution remarked that "the multiplayer... actually works this time"[24] and GameSpot added that both "single-player and multiplayer options have been improved in Civ IV." How was it improved/did it work? Also might be worth reviewing SnowFire's comments below, other than that I think the rest of the article is looking good. And I'm not rushing you, so don't feel like you need to get it done asap, I know its the holiday period. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Brief outsider comment: The logic in this edit is against WP:DEADLINK that deadlink citations are still valid. Either these mobile games are irrelevant and shouldn't be mentioned even if the source was up, *or* the citation should stay and replaced with an archived version of the website if possible.  To do otherwise would weirdly punish easily-checkable online citations - Wikipedia already accepts offline book citations that are difficult to confirm, so a cite to a website that has since moved / is down is still legit.  (Of course, as already noted, maybe those mobile games shouldn't be in the article at all.  I don't know how important they were.) SnowFire (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Extremely sorry for the late reply, I haven't found some spare time to work through the article again what with the busy holiday schedule, but I think I've got some more time now during the weekends to work on it. Regarding that link, I believe it doesn't add much to the article because it's not notable enough to mention, even though the company that publishes it may be, and I've attempted repair on many of the deadlinked references here already. Plus because it's one of those websites that rotate their products on the main page now and then, it could be hard to pinpoint the exact date and time that it appears on for readers to verify it exists before the product is switched out again. The last point would be that it goes against WP:PRIMARY's discouragement of using primary sources for the article, and though admittedly I've used a few already for references, I think it's best to keep it at a minimum. But thanks for your insight! TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 21:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Second opinion
From my read, the second opinion request was regarding the use of 4X? I feel that this terminology is part of the accepted jargon regarding this game, but being jargon, should be wikilinked so that readers can understand it. I'd also note the article (4X) is a featured article. As an additional comment, this article reads well and is well-sourced, but I do feel could be significantly expanded (maybe an extra 2-3 paragraphs) in the production section. It would be interesting and relevant to read about the method and/or philosophy behind the game, including the expansion of the culture mechanic, victory conditions, and use of religion within the game. --LT910001 (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The second opinion request was about the article as a whole, so your comments are very useful for the nominator. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll add this to my list to check through. Give me some time to review it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I like the depth you've gone to in the gameplay section, though you'll probably need more secondary sources for an FA push. In the gameplay subsections, you revisit the victory conditions of the gameplay lead, I like that - but maybe expand on how diplomacy can lead to the UN victory.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Lead - "Civilization IV is typical of most turn-based strategy gameplay...". The typical turn-based strategy game is chess, or some hexy wargame.  The empire building aspect is not typical of most turn based strategy games. Development - "a full 3D immersion of the game... ...which allowed easier readability"  This is not what the source says.  Play other games in the series, and you'll find that Civ IV has the worst unit/terrain readability of the lot.  In general 2D is a lot more readable than 3D - Soren Johnson agrees Reception - I'm unconvinced that GameGuru is a reliable source.  I don't think it's an influential voice who's opinion we should value.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The development section is very lacking, it reads like an unconnected series of anecdotes rather than a summary of the development decisions and processes. This is the fourth game in the series, you need to explain what they set out to do differently versus the previous games, and why they chose to do it.  Start with this Rock, Paper, Shotgun interview - http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/02/20/making-of-soren-johnson-on-civ-4/ It's probably worth splitting out the music into its own paragraph, I'm not a fan of how the article just links to Music in the Civilization video game series (which isn't a particularly good article) instead of fleshing out such an important facet of the game.  An interesting paper -, not peer reviewed, but it has been presented at conferences.
 * 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):
 * Both screenshots are poor representations of gameplay and do little to illustrate the game. There's no real need to nominate File:Civilization4-Tech tree.png for deletion, just remove it from the article and tag it as orfud.  The most important facets of the game is its 3D representation of the game world and its interface, the game takes place between the world map and the city screen.  I'd probably expect a screenshot of each.  An image of a great prophet spreading a religion in a rival city would illustrate multiple points at once, and would serve the reader a lot better than the current images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Some of the points I've mentioned above are easy to fix. But the lack of development coverage is a deal breaker which I consider an instant GA fail. - hahnch e n 05:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Darkwarriorblake, User:TeleComNasSprVen, this review has been open for some time now, and the article has had no substantive edits for around two weeks. I think it's time to close, unless you have further comment. - hahnch e n 16:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh I think that's fair, it's been open a while. I understand if TeleCom is too busy to make the changes right now but its not fair to keep this nomination open for so long. I would say close for now, make the necessary improvements and then re-nom when ready. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, you can do it I suppose since I'm busy on another Wikimedia wiki, but as I understand it there is no time limit between reviews so I can submit another one if/when I've improved the "Production" and "Review" sections right? TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 21:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware there are no time limits unlike FA nominations, so you can just renominate it when ready. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, you can do it I suppose since I'm busy on another Wikimedia wiki, but as I understand it there is no time limit between reviews so I can submit another one if/when I've improved the "Production" and "Review" sections right? TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 21:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware there are no time limits unlike FA nominations, so you can just renominate it when ready. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)