Talk:SimTower/GA2

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

Reviewer: Canadian   Paul  06:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, most likely tomorrow. Canadian  Paul  06:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we go:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Very nice, here are some comments:
 * 1) Under "Gameplay", third paragraph, it is written that "Certain events can take place while managing the tower", but then only one is described, or even mentioned. Would it be possible to include other examples, perhaps not described in the same level of detail, but at least mentioned - aside from the fact that the paragraph is a bit short, the way it's set up leaves the reader wanting more information (I can't remember what the other events can be - I haven't played this game in ages and never got that far anyways!)
 * 2) Under "Development", maybe it isn't stated, but is there a reason that "Development, however, was discontinued in late-2000" for the interaction? I can think of several reasons and, particularly as I can't simply click on a link for more information, it would be nice to know why... and the "development" part of this section is a bit lacking anyways, it's mostly about technology, so anything additional would help (not sure if development info on an older, less well-known game could be found though, so I won't hold it against a GA pass)
 * 3) Under "Release and Reception", is there any reason to have paragraph #3 separate from the one above it? It seems to disrupt the follow a bit, but maybe that's just me.
 * 4) Same section, final paragraph, the word "released" is used three times in four sentences, which gets distracting and repetitive. Could at least one of them be replaced (perhaps, "It was made available later that year in July...")?

To allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian  Paul  01:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay all done, except for the Development section. Another person added that info; the person who added the info is a prolific video game article writer, so I suspect that if he knew the reason it was canceled, he would have added that, too. Gary King  ( talk ) 03:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I figured that it might not be available. Anyhow, everything looks good now so I will be passing this as a Good Article. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Canadian   Paul  05:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)