# Talk:Halo: First Strike

I've reworked this article in hope of increasing grammar and the book's description. I've removed one speculative sentence (the one dealing with Dr. Halsey's whereabouts and reasons for kidnapping Kelly-87) as well as some details I believe are mostly secondary. I added mention to the Forerunners artifact found on Reach since I fell it is instrumental for some of the plot elements in the novel. Berserker79 14:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Not to be a stickler, but I was recently informed of a gaping plot hole within the book, but I'm not positive it's actually true. If you've read the book, re-read the part where MC is forced to go UAV because Keyes doesn't want to use Nukes. He's afraid that the Nukes will blow out the superconducting in the Mac guns. I've been told that technically Nukes wouldn't do that, anyone know for sure?--65.185.14.88 15:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you're getting confused: the scene you refer to is depicted in the novel Halo: The Fall of Reach, not in First Strike. As far as I recall, MC is worried the Electromagnetic pulse resulting from the nukes' explosion will screw the superconducting coils of the MACs. I don't know how a MAC might work, but I'm pretty sure EMP would wreck havoc upon its delicate electronics: explosions from real life nukes generate an EMP wave that can fry electronics, so I think it's pretty much the same in Halo. Hope this helps. Berserker79 09:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it be reasonble to mention (in the article) the book's apparent lack of editing? - The fact that there were many obvious spelling errors and grammar issues in the book itself?

If you can source it, then there's no problem. Peptuck 19:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Halo: First Strike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Well done.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the Setting section, it would be best to add (UNSC) after "United Nations Space Command", I mean I know what it is, but how 'bout the person that reads this article.
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
It would be best if the book sources use {{cite book}} template.
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
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): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
In the Setting section, this ---> "a critically important planet", sounds like POV, it would be best if it were re-worded.
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I got 'em all. Thank you! Blackngold29 21:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you to Blackngold for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the Covenant don't create AI's because the prophets call it moral heresy or somthing. Then what is the Covenant AI in this book? Please clarify.  ⊕Assasin Joe  talk  15:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Halo: First Strike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080830021918/http://talkingaboutgames.com/content/view/1859/32/ to http://talkingaboutgames.com/content/view/1859/32/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)