Talk:Champion of the Raj/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs)) 04:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Jaguar: Grabbing this for a review.

Lead

• Replace the semicolon after factions with a colon

• Done JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• I would suggest linking Mogul, Sikhs, and Marathas (but this is merely a suggestion and not a requirement)

• Done JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Remove “mostly” and just say “mixed reviews”

• Good point, done JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Be specific with “various aspects of gameplay”. While this is the Lead, every sentence should be specific and not ambiguous so specify what aspects of gameplay are being praised.

• I've corrected this. Upon reading it again, most of the gameplay was viewed negatively, so I mentioned that the storyline was praised instead JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Put a semicolon between “gameplay” and “however”

• Done JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Gameplay

• Image needs an alt. and I would recommend using "upright"

• I've added an alt. I don't know if I done something wrong, but every time I added "upright" it appeared to drastically shrink the image, so I was forced to leave that as it was JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• I would reword the second sentence to avoid repetitive language and be more concise: (Before starting the game, the clay can pick a player-character and side to play.)

• Rephrased. JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Link Maruthras, Gurkhas, Maharajah, and Sikhs (Again a suggestion, but you can tell me why you would prefer not linking these)

• Linked all JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Link or specify the meaning behind “chokey” as I am not entirely sure what you are referring to (I could be missing something very obvious).

• Oops. I didn't know what a chokey was either, but I looked it up and it appears to be slang for "prison cell" (which is what I was expecting, but I thought it was a formal use for something). It's actually Anglo-Indian slang! I've just changed it to "prison cell". JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just say “1800”. The “the year” part is unnecessary and redundant

• Done JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Specify what you mean by “status”

• Changed to "popularity" for clarity JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Move the reference on the “game hunting session” to the end of the sentence.

• Done JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Put a comma after “however”

• Added JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Replace “has died through assassination” with “is assassinated”

• Done JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Background

• Remove comma after England

• Removed JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Great job with this section. I am very impressed with the research put into this section and the overall article.

• Thank you! It wasn't easy, but I'm certain that's all of the information that can be found on a small company in the 80s. JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Reception

• I really like how you separated this section into two clear paragraphs with clearly defined topic sentences.

• Thanks. I'm glad to see that there were no errors in this section this time. I was expecting this game to have more coverage, but half of the reviews were just snippets. JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

References

• While not required for the nomination, I would highly recommend archiving all the links when applicable to avoid dead/broken links in the future.

• I've archived what could be archived (excluding scans) JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Final comments

• @Jaguar:This article is already in great form; my comments are more focus on smaller details and once they are addressed, it will be a quick and easy pass. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: thank you for the review! I've addressed all of the above. The majority of the references were scans, which can't be archived, but I did the rest. One of my main interests are in British India and I had high hopes for this game, but when I watched a playthrough video of it on YouTube it turned out to be so bad. I'm glad the article doesn't appear that way, at least! JAGUAR  21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Jaguar: Great work! And I am glad that my comments could help in some way. I am very impressed with the work put into this article (especially as it is an older game and a majority of the references are scans. I am sorry that you are disappointed in the game, but at least you could make something great out of it! Looking forward to reviewing and reading your future working on here. ✓ Pass

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: