Talk:Warhammer 40,000/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I will be reviewing your article for GA. After I have read the article thoroughly again, I will be posting comments here. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "This original version came as a very detailed, though rather jumbled, rulebook, which made it most suitable for fighting small skirmishes." - just so I understand, the entire game came as a rulebook? And then more rules were published in rulebooks and magazines?

• This is harder to answer. The game rules and basic storyline came in a rulebook (and later other books and magazines, etc). In order to play the game (though you could play with paper markers if you so desired), you had to buy miniatures and play with them. It is kind of analogous to Dungeons and Dragons. The rulebook determines in a very real way what kind of game it is--how long it takes, how much you have to memorize, etc. As the rulebooks change, we speak about them in synecdoche. The editions of the rulebooks become editions of the game, even though the pieces and the players remain the same. So in the literal sense, no, the came was not completely contained in the rulebook (although in later years, Games Workshop would experiment with selling kits of models, terrain and rulesets, not sure if they still do). But in less literal terms, the game was the ruleset...I hope that helps. It is kind of academic and I think I'm hopeless in effectively translating that into article prose. Protonk (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also, I am not clear what "units" are (or what they are composed of) although much of the other jargon I can guess. Do persons play as individuals, or do they for groups - units?

• Hopefull the changes in the lead and the gameplay section make this a little more clear. Protonk (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The third edition of the game, released in 1998, again concentrated on streamlining the rules for larger battles." - You suggested something along these lines for the first edition ("create larger and more coherent forces"), but did the second edition concentrate on streamlining the rules for larger battles?

• Slightly rewritten for clarity. The basic idea was that the first edition wasn't really a "polished" work and it's cumbersomeness made it hard to have large battles. Over time, kinks were worked out and the focus of the game changes slightly. I don't have the 1st and 2nd editions in front of me and I don't have some RS explaining that arc, so I'm loathe to go into great detail about it in the article. Protonk (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• "granting them a bonus to their cover save" - what is a "cover save"?

• I think Thumperward fixed this. 05:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• You first wikiling codexes in the Gameplay. You should also wikilink it at first mention above.
• Perhaps you are following a video game format, but the History section would make a lot more sense if the Gameplay came first.

• This is a great suggestion. Done. Background>Gameplay>History>Reception>Spinoffs. Protonk (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• How many players are there, or can there be? Does a player become one of the races? Do players form groups or is it always solo? I am not understanding the overall game. Maybe you could put a brief, simple description from the point of view of an individual player in the beginning, say in the lead. The link to Miniature wargaming helps, but I think the reader should not have to depend solely on reading all the wikilinks to be able to follow the article.

• I'll try to answer this better as I improve the gameplay section. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I believe the first time you mention "participants" is under Modelling. Before that, there is no sense that people play this game.

• Hah. This is the kind of thing I never realize when writing this sort of article. Still working on this in changes to remind myself that humans play this game. :) Protonk (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• "galaxy" equals "universe", or not?

• Hopefully fixed. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• It would also help if Background were up near the beginning, to orient the general reader. It would help to draw in the reader before you get into the more detailed info that makes no sense to a general reader like me.

• Moved. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Should Spin-offs and related fiction come last?

• Moved. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Two Fair use images is probably O.K.

This is not a negative review. I can see the article is well written and very well referenced. I just need some help in following it. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for a review like this. This is really exactly what I'm looking for. I used to play the game about a million years ago and ~90% of the editors to the page have played the game or play it currently. An outside viewpoint showing what unspoken assumptions we make is perfect. Let me look at the article itself some and see if I can change things around and then I'll attempt to respond to individual points. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• If you wouldn't mind giving this another read through for general approachability (now that a few changes have been made), I would greatly appreciate it. No rush. Protonk (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• It is infinitely improved in approachability and makes very good sense now. I will read it through for MoS issues, etc. Did you notice that the article has a "citation needed" tag?

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• I did. Chris added that when he introduced the "some tournaments require all models be painted sentence". I'm going to look through the newspaper sources I have (which means I have to log back on to lexis or proquest...grr...). If I can't find a source I'll modify the sentence or remove it. Protonk (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Cn tag is fixed now. Protonk (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

• " that provide the backdrop and history span over millennia (eg, a 70-year civil war, a 1000-year crusade)." - millenia means generally a thousand years, so is a 70-year civil war right?

• I didn't add it, so I'm not sure what that refers to--it may refer to a backstory event that occurs before the "time" set in the game called Horus Heresy. I just removed it.

• " which consist of billions of regiments of thousands of normal soldiers of the worlds of the Imperium, and the Imperial Navy." - too many "of"s.

• Done

• "The Warhammer 40,000 game and fictional universe is made up of many races and species. The main playable armies in the game are the Chaos Daemons, Chaos Space Marines, Daemonhunters, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Imperial Guard, Necrons, Orks, Space Marines, Tau Empire, Tyranids and Witch Hunters. Most races have variant armies." - maybe this sentence should go before you describe the races above in the section.

• Removed and another sentence (and source) added to clarify.

• "Each battle, at the onset, is assigned a set of additional rules and a goal" - who assigns - does it come out of the rule book?

• Hopefully explained. give it another go.

• There are "scenerios" and then "More complex scenarios exist in the main rulebook." ?? - sounds like there is a lot of leeway in how the gamers make up the game.

• That sentence was leftover from an older revision. I've changed the "scenario" paragraph a bit to make it hopefully less opaque.

• "comprise" - use another word, as you are repeating it at least three times

• But...but... It's so neutral and official sounding!

• "Those scenarios and the campaigns which many scenarios might comprise may be designed by..." - clumsy - too many "may"s

• fixed

I may have a few more comments before I finish. All the links check out and dabs are fine. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• The article is quite well done. You have clarified the issues. A very good job!

Finval GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): The prose is good. b (MoS): No obvious MoS problems.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): The references use a uniform format. b (citations to reliable sources): They appear to be reliable and relevant. c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Article sets the context. b (focused): It focuses appropriately on the specifics.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Very neutral. (When I checked book reviews, etc. I was surprised at the strength of the fan base!)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congradulations! You have been very responsive to suggestions which I appreciate. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)