Talk:MegaTraveller 1: The Zhodani Conspiracy

WikiProject Role-playing games
I'm removing the element from this Talk page which reads: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games...." The Wiki page for that project states "Role-playing video games are outside the scope of this project; they belong at WikiProject VG." Mike Agricola (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject video games assessment
Per your request at the video game project Mike I've reassessed the article C-class. This is an excellent article, thank you for your work.

The article is basically B-class, but I held back from that because of one particular issue. The lead section should be a concise description of the article containing all major aspects. For video game articles they typically fill out to fill two (sometimes three) paragraphs consisting of:


 * General information (what is the subject of the article, when was it released, on which systems?)
 * Gameplay.
 * Plot (if applicable, if the plot is throw-away then it might consist of one or two sentences).
 * Development.
 * Reception.
 * Where a legacy section is present, as in here, one or two sentences may be necessary/relevant to include on the tail-end of the lead.

As it stands the lead covers everything except the development and reception, I'm not sure what if any of the legacy information needs to go in, but those two aspects need covering for the lead to be 'complete'. If the lead were completed then I would suggest that it should be rated B straight away.

There are some other minor issues within the reception section.


 * See WP:SAY regarding the usage of words like "declared", when assigning statements to commentators it's best to use plain, neutral language such as "said" or "stated".
 * In a similar vein "The article justified this poor assessment by..." is problematic. It's kind of a judgement on the writer's motives as opposed to letting the quote speak for itself.
 * This part is more awkward, and I have great trouble with it myself, but the flow of the reception section is very much he said/she said. Picking out common themes in the reviews, backing them up with some quotations and noting any dissention (with due weight) is a better format than summarizing each reviewer's opinion one after another in blocks. If there are any aspects of the game which each/most reviews touch on, be it the combat system or travel within the game etc. then they're good aspects to cover. This goes doubly so for the basics such as graphics and sound.
 * I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Amiga Magazine Rack, which carries scans of Amiga magazines, but it has six viewable magazine reviews, some of which are in the article but some aren't.
 * The reception section has enough (IMHO) reviews, and there are only so many needed, but the more reviews are present the easier it is to find common threads. Take away the retrospective worst 100 piece by CGW and the Dragon Magazine review which is just a score at present, then you've only got 4 reviews there to play with. This is a multi-format release which received plenty of coverage, so a few more couldn't hurt, particularly if you could dig up some Atari ST reviews from Atari magazine scan sites. PC mags are a lot more troublesome to get hold of.

One other minor issue is that some box art would be good, if you could find any without watermarks etc.

Like I said, to me personally it's 95% a B-class article, other project members may well disagree and would have rated it B from the outset, so I have no issue if another editor ups it in the meantime or if you expand the lead and do so yourself. I hope to see this nominated as a Good Article in the future. Someoneanother 00:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I put up the boxart.  Salvidrim!   00:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks :) Someoneanother 00:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great suggestions Someoneanother! I'll definitely take those into consideration when I do some further editing of both MegaTraveller articles in the near future.  Appreciated. --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just made numerous edits to the article to complete the Lead, rearrange and expand Reception, and add/modify a few other things here and there. Does it now merit a B-class status? --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It does, rated accordingly. Great stuff. I'll give it a thorough going-over when I get a minute but I doubt you would have much trouble getting this article through GA now. Someoneanother 10:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)