Talk:DEFCON (video game)/GA1

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

I haven't completed a full review, but Defcon is a C-class article rather than a GA candidate, rated accordingly. Here's some things to consider before renominating:
 * Gameplay is full of bullet-points, lists and excessive sub-headings containing little information. Multiplayer may warrant a sub-heading, but all game modes can be summarized within gameplay proper or the multiplayer sub-heading if that's more appropriate.
 * Units should be summarized under a sub-heading within gameplay, each type of unit doesn't need a separate sub-heading, these break the flow of text. See Golden Sun: The Lost Age's gameplay section as an example. I do like the table with the Defcon ratings though.
 * There isn't a development section, this is all but vital for video game Good Articles unless there is a strong argument that such information is not available. Considering the publicity surrounding the developer's plight after the development of Darwinia, and the subsequent interest in that game, it's extremely unlikely that there are not interviews with them covering this game. See Chocolatier (video game)'s development section as an example.
 * Reception is a stub section and again it is vital that this is completed before the article could be a GA. The scores belong in a review box, see Wario World's reception section for an example, if you hit 'edit' you can copy and paste the box and fill it out with the relevant reviews.
 * Citations from websites would ideally be cited using the cite web format, so all the relevant details are there for the reader to see.

Hope that's of use. Someoneanother 08:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for your suggestions. I am already working to try to implement them into the article. I have added a infobox to the reception section already and am going to keep working on the article. Thanks again, Canadakid2 (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)