The first Gaming COTW, and a very good article. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 13:51, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support; may benefit from a references section, however (the Notes section is a good start :-)). Zerbey 16:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Strong support; regarding references, a good deal of it is direct observation of the game. Andre (talk) 17:23, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 23:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Strong support. I'm impressed! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Object. Needs a longer Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section, summarising the article. Other than that, this seems fine. Perhaps adding the instruction manual as a reference is a good idea? Jeronimo 06:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. But please consider, naming the notes. They're only numbers now. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:16, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Strong Support. Gaming Collaboration of the week did a great job on its first article, I think. For anyone who's interested, GCOTW's History page has some more details concerning what the collaboration did to it. pie4all88 20:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Object. There are places where the writing could be improved, and there are bits of POV which should be eliminated. Also, more of the information in the externally linked interview about the game's development needs to be included. This shouldn't be much work... hopefully I'll be unlazy enough to do it myself. Fredrik | talk 20:49, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --Alex Krupp 04:32, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support when a picture is added or it would be problematic to feature on the main page :-). Nah, seriously, support. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 08:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support ZayZayEM 03:27, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Object--Josiah 06:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Uh...aren't you supposed to say why you object? Johnleemk | Talk 10:17, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)