Wikipedia:Peer review/Risk (game)/archive3

Risk (game)
Peer review/Risk (game)/archive1 Peer review/Risk (game)/archive2

After much work, I feel that this article is very close to becoming FA. It needs someone to do a grammar check and suggest where I should include more citations. Granted, there is still one section that I still need to add a little bit more to, viz. the official Risk versions section. However, I plan on working on that as people give me suggestions. Thanks. :D b_cubed 05:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Review by Clyde
 * I took a look mostly References. Here we go.


 * There is a lot of OR in this article or it simply is not citied. A few random examples are (not all-inclusive):
 * "In the most recent rulebook, three variations are given."
 * "The official rulebook suggests variations to the gameplay mechanics for "Risk experts,""


 * Some sections are missing a citation. While there is no law that there must be X citations in an article, it would be wishful thinking to believe someone could read a whole paragraph or section without challenging a single fact in it. Hence, you need more citations.
 * Standard setup. There's no proof that what is written is the proper order or accepted practice of beginning the game.
 * Player turn. There are seven paragraphs present, and it is a stretch to believe all of that without any refs.
 * Basic strategy. How do I, the reader, know the official rulebook said that? Cite.
 * Popular Culture. See if you can find something out there about the episode, and then look for a mention of Risk in the write-up.


 * You have a bunch of rulebooks in the external links section of the article; you're the expert here (I don't know which one to use) but find one to cite anything and everything.
 * Several sentences are POV and need a reference and possibly rewrite for FA standards. A couple examples (Not everything)
 * "Compared to other military board games, Risk is relatively simple and abstract."
 * "Setting up the Risk board for play is more involved than in many other games."


 * It looks like most of the refs are in cite web (you might want to make them all cite web), which is good, but try to flesh them out so every single one has a publisher and wikified publishing date.
 * Reference 8 is simply Risk II. If you must remove the lid to open a paint can, it is better to cite the directions or an FAQ rather than the paint can itself. Just a suggestion.
 * I think that'll get you started.--Clyde (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)