Talk:Diamond Trust of London

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Diamond Trust of London/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Niwi3 (talk · contribs) 23:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review.

On a first read, this looks like very impressive work: well-written, well-focused, and proofread. There may be a few issues though:

• Some sentences are without sources, especially in the first paragraphs of the development section. I suspect that the citations at the end of the paragraphs cover the material, but it would be better if they were at the end of the corresponding sentences.
• I would mention the genre in the gameplay section -- "Diamond Trust of London is a turn-based strategy game where players control one of two..."
• In the reception section, "The game received only a handful of reviews" -- this is not very encyclopedic. Perhaps, "The game received very few reviews from critics, and they were generally mixed"?
• References are not needed in the infobox if the content is repeated (and cited).

Overall, very good article. If you have any questions on these points, or if you think I'm being unreasonable, please ask. Thank you. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I generally move cite templates to the end of paragraphs if I can to preserve flow in the text. I know that some editors prefer a denser citation style, and there was an edit which made the upcoming DYK hook more explicit. I added an extra cite template in the first Development paragraph, it's kind of redundant, but it's at a natural break in the text which could have been a paragraph. As a result of the review, I actually noticed that I missed a citation from the fourth Development paragraph.
• I didn't think it necessary to mention that it was a turn based strategy again, because I'm explicitly describing the turns and the strategy involved. As Gameplay is the first section after Lead, I thought I could just dive right in.
• I don't agree. It's a bit of a judgement call, I think "very few" is a bit strong, yet also relative.
• Removed the extraneous reference. Also spotted that I still had an old ESRB rating in there which I've removed also.
  • hahnchen 13:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

All right, you’ve got a point there. This is a clear pass as far as I'm concerned and no other issues are evident. --Niwi3 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See above.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	See above.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass. Very good work.

Should British English be specified?

Should British English be specified? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean "specified"? MoS should be followed on all articles. The only time a national variety of English needs to be explicitly specified is when there are frequent disputes on individual articles. --Laser brain (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Really open source?

Is this game really open source (in the sense of FOSS or OSI)? There is no link to the sources (except for the external link which goes to a repository which does not seem to contain license information), nor is there information about the used license mentioned anywhere else. I think this information should be added if available.Trilarion (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)