Talk:Age of Empires: The Rise of Rome/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 08:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 17:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

1. Composers are unsourced and unmentioned in article
2. The Genie engine is unsourced and unmentioned in article
3. The release platform is unsourced and unmentioned in article
4. The artist is unsourced and unmentioned in article
5. The programmer is unsourced and unmentioned in article
6. The designer is unsourced and unmentioned in article
   1. I've added the manuals as citations and made the point that a scenario designer in the original game was the lead designer in the expansion. I think the engine info can go as it's not mentioned anywhere. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
      1. Are there no sources available for other staff? Also, should still mention and cite Windows in the article.
         1. Sadly not. Happy to omit it if it isn't worth it. I've added Windows as the platform the game was developed for in the headline.

Gameplay

1. Tweaked a bit to clarify what it adds content to.
2. I think a section + see also to AoEVG dedicated to explaining how AoE works would be valuable, as I think that without an explanation, these details may be more difficult to understand for those who don't know what kind of game AoE is. This should also clarify that it's a real-time strategy game. As an example of the issue, I feel that the population limit is not well explained, and would be hard to explain without describing the functions of units and supply.
   1. I've added a few words on the core gameplay, but I think I've tried to keep it brief too, just noting that there's combat units and resource gathering involved in the game.
3. The sentence on the historical reenactments could be tweaked to flow a little better, maybe split into multiple sentences?
   1. Edited this down to simplify it.
      1. I think this is reasonable, I just thought it prudent to clarify what kind of game it was to uninformed readers.
4. "The Rise of Rome introduces four new campaigns to Age of Empires over nineteen scenarios" Should this be an and after The Rise of Rome?
   1. I'm not sure I understand this one, sorry.

Development and release

1. "The expansion was conceived during a delay in the development of the game's sequel, Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings, which the studio identified needed more time beyond its planned release date of 1998" This reads a little confusing, it might be just on me though. I wasn't sure if it was a typo and it's meant to say "which the studio identified as being due to needing more time beyond..." or if it's "[Ensemble Studios] identified needing more time..." or something else.
   1. Reworded to simplify this.

Reception

1. Is Shelly Shelley?
   1. Good pick up.
2. I feel like Retrospective reception could use a little tweaking just to make things flow better. Nothing bad, just a suggestion.
   1. Made minor changes, but welcome any specific edits if a rewrite is needed.

Images

1. Screenshot should specify exactly what it's doing in the article, ie why specifically it is used. For example, to visualize its depiction of Ancient Rome, to show the gameplay, to show the perspective, anything about the gameplay that might be discussed by critics that could be used to justify it.
   1. Good call - I've reworded to focus on the fact that the image depicts art from one of the new playable civs.

Spotcheck

1. Checked sources 2 and 3. They seem to be saying what they're cited for, although I'm a little confused why 3 is cited for this: "The Rise of Rome introduces four new playable civilizations: Rome, Carthage, Palmyra, and Macedonia." Unless I'm misunderstanding, 2 seems to cite all that info.
   1. Good call - adjusted accordingly.
2. Checked source 13, attached to "The expansion was conceived during a delay in the development of the game's sequel, Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings, which was originally planned for release in 1998." Seems accurate, though I wonder if it wouldn't be worthwhile to mention that part of the motivation to delay was informed by a desire to have more time to work on the sequel.
   1. So the source says! That's a fair correction. I've adjusted it.
3. Checked the sources pertaining to this: "The Rise of Rome was a commercial success. Global sales estimates have varied between 800,000 and 1.2 million units by the early 2000s." All seem to check out.
4. Checked the Kotaku Ash Parrish piece, checks out.

@Vrxces: Just checking to see what up. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin: Apologies, I have been frustrated with Wikipedia and decided to take time away from the site. Thank you as ever for your help - I've actioned the above. Let me know if there's anything else I can provide. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vrxces: Hey, just checking back in, gonna finish the review now. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vrxces: Just a reminder! - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin: Thank you for your patience. I have addressed the above and really appreciate your time on this. July has not been a good month but hopefully August is better! Let me know if there's anything else. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It ain't no thang. I'll check it out quick. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

All right, passed. Good job, and hopefully August is better for you. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)