Wikipedia:Peer review/Palago/archive1

Palago
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want feedback on making it better.

Also, I was looking at the Category:Tabletop games and I didn't see a way to navigate to Category:Tile-based board games. How can I create a subcategory on Category:Tabletop games?

Thanks, RexJacobus (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * From Philcha
 * I notice that the Boardgamegeek page seems to describe a game from the 2 other pages you mention - and this comment from Boardgamegeek says the main Boardgamegeek page is out of date. If this is correct, the game is still evolving and you will need to keep updating the article. I think you would get more results for the effort if you choose a more stable subject. --Philcha (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "first rules" seems to describe the 2-player strategy. However it links to Play Palago, which seems to describe othe variants. Play Palago is also one of the most irritating pages I've seem - try clinking "Enter" to see that I mean - it's a basic newbie web page designer error, and makes the whole enterprise look unprofessional. Its only benefit that it outlines other variants / games uses with the tile set. --Philcha (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from the pages I've mentioned, Google found me nothing useful. In desperation I tried Google Scholar, where the academic articles live, but the only half relevant hit was Duotone Truchet-like tilings, an article by Cameron Browne - unfortunate in a subscription-only journal for while I don't access, so I can't see how far the article is any a variant of the game and how far its about the tile set. --Philcha (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At present I suspect Palago is at risk of being deleted if it was nominated for deletion review, because it's hard to see that its  notable by WPs rules. I suspect you should save a copy in a subpage of your user page, e.g. User:RexJacobus/Palago. Sorry for the pessimistic review, but sometimes you just can't get enough sources - I had to give up on 3 where I get sources for some of the sections but not for others. --Philcha (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)