Talk:Call of Duty: World at War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeCall of Duty: World at War was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 20, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
March 20, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
December 31, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Final part of "Eviction"[edit]

I think that my reference to Dimitri's being unable to avoid the surge of water is justifiable, as I turned the subtitles on and Reznov can be heard shouting "DIMITRI! LOOK OUT!" This may imply that he and Chernov had managed to get through the door in time and Dimitri had not been so lucky. Grieferhate (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's original research and has no use in Wikipedia. Jolly Ω Janner 16:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change of article[edit]

I was unable to revert the changes to the article, so I felt that I had to re-type it myself. The reason why I did it is because, for a start, the grammar is below standard and, second, it looked exactly as it used to look - like some stingy person from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four had had a field day with it. Grieferhate (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope it is concise enough, as the section was criticised for its long length at the previous good article nomination. Jolly Ω Janner 15:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make it as concise as possible. I also felt that the grammar of the previous article was completely below standard. It required a major brush up, so I decided to kill two birds with one stone. Grieferhate (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Call of Duty: World at War/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
  1. Well-written:Green tickY
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; andGreen tickY
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.Green tickY
  2. Verifiable with no original research:Green tickY
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;Green tickY
    (b) 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); andGreen tickY
    (c) it contains no original research.Green tickY
  3. Broad in its coverage:Green tickY
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; andGreen tickY
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).Green tickY
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.Green tickY
  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:Red XN
    7. (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; andRed XN
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.Green tickY

Issues[edit]

  • Though not all editors do, I require alt text for all images in my reviews per WP:ALT
  • The Nintendo DS screenshot needs changed or updated. Click on the image an you'll see why. All rationales but the game's cover also need to be updated with more than just one-word answers to their criteria. For example, "Replaceable" shouldn't say "No", but something like "No free images have been released to replace this image".
  •  Done There are two disambig links that need fixed
  • It looks like there are two dead references
  • References need to have a consistent date format. Some are MM DD, YYYY, most are YYYY-MM-DD. I would recommend YYYY-MM-DD for all dates in the refs.
  • All www.callofduty.com references redirect to an age input page. If you can find other sources to replace them, I'd strongly recommend it.

I'd say the issues are really minor. The article reads really well and flows nicely. Criteria #5 (Stability) is a tiny bit iffy with the recent IP edit reverts, but I don't think it'll fail the article unless the IP edits go nuts in the next week.

As per the standard, I'm giving one week for updates to be made before a pass/fail is given.

Reviewer: Teancum (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinions[edit]

  • the poor flowing and far too long synopsis section: 6 paragraphs, over 900 words, mission-by-mission with all sorts of unnecessary trivialities. 1a and 3b
  • the lack of development information for a high-profile mainstream game, though some sources were pointed to in previous GANs. 3a
  • the reception section for a game of this profile built around essentially only four reviews (GameSpot, 1UP, IGN and OXM), far from being a comprehensive analysis of critical opinion. For more obscure subjects, small numbers of reviews can be accepted, but this is a high-profile mainstream game with plenty of reviews available. 3a
  • the presence of five non-free screenshots with poor captioning and none of them having a solid rationale to justify their presence. You've already picked up on this to an extent in the review. One screenshot is usually enough, two if really necessary, but five? 6a and 6b

-- Sabre (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Please note that I stand by these issues too. Sabre pointed them out and I have pasted them here to add to the review, as they are all good points that I hadn't considered. These will be considered required for passing the GAN. --Teancum (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • On ths issue of reviewing non-free content, I have considered those images which are neccessary for an aritlce on a video game and I think I come out with about three that should stay: the box art, the gameplay picture "Gameplay in online multiplayer's War mode", and the Nintendo DS version "The graphics and gameplay shown on the Nintendo DS version". What are your thoughts to removing the rest of them and just leaving the ones listed above? Jolly Ω Janner 20:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The box art always stays, so that's fine. The other two I'm fine with, IF a non-watermark replacement for the DS screenshot can be found. --Teancum (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd go with an SP image that bests demonstrates both graphics and the "gritty, dark side of war" that is alleged in the intro, personally, rather than a MP image. Go with a screenshot that shows a subject that is covered in critical commentary: you can generate a far stronger rationale and accompanying caption that way. -- Sabre (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately due to the edit wars/vandalism and the fact that only a few issues have been addressed, I'm going to go ahead and Fail this article. Feel free to resubmit it once the updates are made. --Teancum (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Call of Duty: World at War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Call_of_Duty:_World_at_War&oldid=1198014354"