Talk:Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus

Recent edits by JM17

@JM17: care to describe what the intent of your edits are, here, on the talk page? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, you can't guess at them? "We all know that many people with more "liberal" mindsets have begun referring to anyone not like them as Nazi": ongoing attempt to devalue the term and thus make Nazis look less like Nazis. (No, we don't all know that.) Drmies (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not for calling people out. You can use their talk page for that.76.76.254.34 (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sales Data?

I have been attempting to corroborate various articles saying Wolfenstein II sold "half of its predecessor", but it seems that the only indication of its sales are a UK tracking company that do not provide sales numbers and seems to be unreliable speculation. See primary source: (https://www.chart-track.co.uk/index.jsp?c=p/software/uk/latest/index_test.jsp&ct=110015). 73.62.160.142 (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Chart-Track isn't being cited. WCCFTECH is which has access to Chart-Track and WCCFTECH is a Reliable source. This is not uncommon a news source will form an statement off the data they see but not list the figures like a non prime-time show's ranking but not its rating number. Chart Track isn't going to state their numbers if that is what they sell through their software. They are not speculation and are regularly used. "The company has established an unparalleled reputation for fast and accurate retail research on a wide range of home entertainment products." Contentcreator (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Quotes in Promotion & Release section are not in references

Multiple quotes in this section are not in the sourced material. The quotes are in this source - https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-10-06-bethesda-were-not-afraid-of-being-openly-anti-nazi Michael Z Freeman (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RetroCosmos (talk · contribs) 18:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Final note

I've done a source spot check and all sources I've looked at check out. Keep up the good work and I hope to see more of them at GA nominations. RetroCosmos (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I can take this. Will be adding to it as I read.

The following good articles have been considered:

• Hitman 3

Running note: I notice we are in the same timezone. I will add more by tomorrow afternoon. But I don't really see a whole lot wrong with the article. RetroCosmos (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Well-written:

• the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
  • The game was developed using id Tech 6; the technology and animations required a complete overhaul from The New Order, which used id Tech 5.
    • This sentence may be fine in the lead, but it might be worthwhile to specify that this is a game engine in the Dev section RetroCosmos (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Matthies described Sigrun as a "complicated character" due to her troubled past Despite being "completely absorbed in the Nazi ideology and culture", she resents her past.[32] Adolf Hitler was featured it the Venus level. Please fix this part RetroCosmos (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

    Adolf Hitler was featured it the Venus level. - I assume you mean "featured in the Venus level", although this sentence doesn't really tie in to the rest of the paragraph, it kinda feels like it was jammed in there. It might benefit from better integration RetroCosmos (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Verifiable with no original research:

• it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
• reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
• it contains no original research; and
• it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

• it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
• it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

• May benefit from topically relevant pictures, such as a comparison between the id4 and id5 engines? The development section is a bit empty. But this is not fatal to the GA RetroCosmos (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

@RetroCosmos: - Thanks for the review! I have addressed all the issues. There are no suitable free-use images for the development section (no pic for devs). OceanHok (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Quite frankly I am having difficulty finding much else wrong with this article. I'll have a look over again and then perform a source spot-check, though nothing really jumps out to me on that front either. RetroCosmos (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism

The top portion of the page has been replaced with repetitive mentions of Hitler. Maybe we can undo it and lock down the page? 67.71.31.118 (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)