GA Review
editWhen I first saw this page name, I actually thought this was a gaming company of sorts. Being a fan of the Civilization series, you can probably imagine my surprise that there is such a sub-genre this game falls under. Overall, I think this is a well worked article and only have a few problems with it. However, these problems I have with the article do not stop it from qualifying for GA status, so congratulations to everyone who has worked on the article!
However, I wouldn't like to think of myself as a GA reviewer if I did not at least give you some pointers if you wish to pursue this article to be an FA:
- My first concern for the article is the use of references in the lead. Per WP:LEAD references should not be used in the lead unless it has no place in the main article text or in controversial subjects where infomation could be challenge by other editors. The reason for my concern also is because most of the references are already used in the main body of the text and, in my opinion, if you've already mentioned these facts in the article then I don't think the references have any right to be in the lead. If you have an explanation for this, then be my guest as I always liked being proved wrong. :-D
- The next few ones are just from a civilization fan and maybe just too specific for the game for the article to worry about, but still:
- You mention in the "Peaceful resolution" that if a player has the highest score at the end of the game, then that's a victory. While true, it maybe worth noting that Civ IV is turn based - not time, so the player with the highest score after too turns (well, I have it set at 500 anyway!) wins the game.
- Also, I believe the Civ IV article also has a full technology tree if you wish to adress the sheer size of Tech Trees in 4X games.
- Back onto refs. I see a number of times refs not being put behind punctuation marks. Per WP:REF, these should be put behind punctuation marks (ie, full stops and commas) so the writing looks tidier.
Anyway, like I said these are just my (rather) minor concerns and so you shouldn't really be concerned if your just leaving the article at GA status. Well done on getting this article passed by the way. On two final requests, may I ask that you review other people's articles at WP:GAC as well and remember to review this GA review as well (see my sig). --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 13:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks a lot for the positive review! I fixed the references that weren't after punctuation, and switched the end game from "time" to "turns". I left the lead alone, though, because some peer reviews complained of unreferenced information. If need be, we can remove it later since there are no new or novel claims in the lead that aren't already in the main article. Thanks again! Randomran (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)