At ref now named "MOO2ComparedWithRecentSpace4X":.GameSpot - Features - MOO2 - Races and its sub-pages. Other sources have criticised the balance in the "out of the box" version, e.g. Ref now named "Moo2BlogspotMods" is by the enthusiast group and is about improving the balance of the races.In that case that could satisfy a reader's need for a "real world perspective" review, plus given them additional information, making the link fall under WP:ELMAYBE.
A compromise would be if there is an external link to a fansite that happens to have a review and lots of other useful information. Blogs and the like would be okay for things like DOSbox, but if the game is truly the 4X benchmark the article claims then there should be sufficient reliable sources to correctly cite reviews. If the IGN review is incorrect, simply find another. While true, with something like a review I feel we should be more tightened down to reliable sources.For example Tom Chick at PC Retroview: Master of Orion II makes a serious error about some races. Readers can make their minds, and some may consider that the enthusiast group is more reliable than reviews from magazines, where the reviewers are under time pressure and possibly commercial pressures (very few reviews give so few scores below 80%).If there's nothing better, then just leave it be. The link isn't trying to cite anything that'd require an editorial staff. As the game is still the benchmark for 4X games, some readers will want to try it. It's the only way to play the games reliably on modern Windows versions.The text explicitly says they are an enthusiast group: Ref now named "MOO2BlogspotDOSBox" is the enthusiast group.I'm also looking in reverse order, so that the numbers of the earlier refs are not changes. As you have not done this, I'm look at the last version of the article before the GAR.
In each instance please specify the text that immediately precedes the text.
0 kommentar(er)
