Talk:X-COM: UFO Defense/GA2

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

Reviewer: Cabe6403 (talk · contribs) 09:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Many of the issues raised in the previous GAN have not been resolved, for example:


 * Sources - The previous GAR pointed out that many of the print sources did not specify pages. Currently only 3 of (roughly) 25 print citations contain page numbers.
 * Reception section - Lacks real content. Mainly just, as the previous reviewer put it, 'cherry picked quotes'
 * Images - the world image fails.

The reason I am quick failing this is that the nominator has rushed the article back into GAN only weeks after the previous review was submitted. Many issues have not been fully addressed and lots of fancy bells and whistles have been added around the previous issues somewhat disguising them. The article failed GA criteria when it was first nominated and still fails. I would encourage editors to take a step back, work through the issues raised, submit the article for peer-review (sometimes it's hard to see what's wrong with an article you've spent ages working on, community feedback is good) and, once the previous steps have been completed, renominate for GA. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There will be no page numbers because I don't have all of them. Also, it's unnecessery (it's mags, not books). What "real" content? (As opposed to imaginary content, I guess.) The world image "fails" what? --Niemti (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This was over a month ago so it's going to be hard to respond accurately but I'll do my best.


 * The print copies can be found at WP:VG/M for many magazines. Why would it be unnecessary to specify page numbers?


 * Real content in that I got to the end of the reception section and was no more clued up on things than I was at the start. Quotes should be used to support content and analysis not be them.


 * Most likely the image failed because the rational for use was incomplete, there should be no N/A in applicable sections


 * I'm not going to discuss this review as you've had almost five weeks to ask questions but declined to do so. I have moved on from this review so most of the information is not fresh in my head. Cheers Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 19:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles (reviews, etc.) can be found in the menus of the magazines in, like what, few seconds? Once the said magazines are obtained, of course. Which is not like searching for specific content through the books. That's strange, because I thought the reception is great (with more than 50 references, many of whom are available to read easily, and morever not going too much into outdated and irrevelant details from nearly 20 years ago but keeping it up to date). "N/A" is automatic when you upload an image - because these lines are not needed (the lines that are necessery must be filled or else the image can't be uploaded). --Niemti (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

But is interesting indeed. --Niemti (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)