Talk:Worms Armageddon/GA1

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 05:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Be advised I tend to make minor changes myself as I go. If you're unhappy with any change I make just revert it and we'll talk about it instead. :) Freikorp (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * "unless the Select Worm item is used" - I don't think this will make much sense to a person who hasn't played this game, perhaps explain what the select worm item is.
 * Try and avoid writing in brackets unless it is unavoidable. For example the brackets in "(such as collecting a specific crate)" could easily be replaced with a comma.
 * Consider wikilinks for all the various consoles mentioned in the development section
 * "The Nintendo 64 version's multiplayer was developed so that the player could configure virtually everything" - in what way are the configurations different from the other versions?
 * Are you certain this game was only nominated for/won one award? For a game of its popularity I find that difficult to believe.
 * You don't have any information on sales of the game. I.e how many copies of it were sold? Can you find some info on this?
 * "Worms Armageddon received generally positive reviews from video game critics." Try and avoid one-sentence paragraphs. Perhaps expand this with some common ground - i.e what was it about all versions of the game that received good reviews?
 * "Worms Armageddon has been placed on several lists of the greatest games of all time" - I think this entire paragraph be better placed in the legacy section, your thoughts?
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * Archiving more of the references would be nice but that's not a requirement for GA
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * As per comments in section one.
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * As indicated by talk page and article history.
 * 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:
 * Having an image from a similar game with identical graphics is something I haven't seen done before, but I don't see a problem with this. Is there any reason you've chosen not to utilise File:WormsArmageddon1.PNG, since that actually is a screenshot from this game?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Well done overall. I made a few changes; they can be seen here: I'm placing this on hold until issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am crossing out suggestions that have been fulfilled. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 22:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am having (and have had) trouble with finding sources that talk about the game's sales as well as sources that are about the nominations of the game. I should probably search harder. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 02:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I just made a brief search myself and I can't find anything either. By all means keep trying, sales information would improve the article, but if the information isn't out there it just isn't out there. Maybe it didn't get nominated for any other awards. I'm happy for this to pass. Freikorp (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)