Misplaced Pages

Talk:Revolution Software

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jezhotwells (talk | contribs) at 22:01, 6 October 2011 (failed GA nomination). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:01, 6 October 2011 by Jezhotwells (talk | contribs) (failed GA nomination)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articlesRevolution Software was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 6, 2011, reviewed version). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
WikiProject iconVideo games Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...

Importance

This Article should be Highly Important, because Revolution Software made one of the most successful Adventure Classics of All Time! Plus - it was found by a Legendof the Gaming Industry: Charles Cecil! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7arazred (talk • contribs) 12:42, 17 September 2011

Per the Importance scale for WikiProject Video games, companies are ranked Top-importance (article forms the basis of all information) if they are highly influential companies, particularly the major Japanese, American, and European companies involved in video game production, e.g. Blizzard Entertainment, Capcom, Nintendo; they are ranked High-importance (article covers a general area of knowledge) if they are top developers and publishers, e.g. Epic Games, Neversoft; they are ranked Mid-importance (article fills in general knowledge of specialized topics) if they are most other well-known companies in the industry, e.g. IGN, Gamestop, Naughty Dog; and Low-importance otherwise. Personally I'm reluctant to go even as high as Mid-importance, because no evidence has been provided of this company being well-known, so I think that Low-importance is justified. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

References

I have added many References, because there weren't enough of them. :D --7arazred (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Revolution Software/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 21:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: One found and fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: None found. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The lead does not adequately summarise the article, see WP:LEAD
    There is an undue use of promotional and POV language.
    The is a mixture of inline hyperlinks and citations.
    The prose is not very good, not "reasonably well written".
    Not well organised, information needs to be presented logically. Please read WP:MoS and subpages.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    What makes GameFAQs and Revfans reliable sources?
    Most of the sources are WP:Primary sources. This needs good third party sources.
    Misplaced Pages can not be used as a source.
    There is no sourcing for game releases in the Games section.
    Sources used for citations are also present in the external links section which is not permitted, see WP:EL
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    No mention of sales figures; no real indication of whether this company meets the WP:CORP guidelines.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Appears overly promotional
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    stable
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The specific source of the image needs to be provided.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Shoddily put together, please read the good article criteria and make sure that this article meetrs them before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Categories: