Talk:Lost Planet: Extreme Condition/GA2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
So from what I see from this article, I do not believe that it meets GA criteria. The first issue I have with it is its lead as all it mentions is the game, publisher and developer, and when and where the game was released. Has no mention about the gameplay, the plot, reception, or development. Another issue it has is it being unreferenced with only one reference being used in the Gameplay section. As well, the "Sequel" and "Prequel" sections need to moved to a "Legacy" section and be expanded upon. GamerPro64 21:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree that the lede and legacy/sequel sections need expansion to meet the lede and breadth requirements. Outside the GA criteria, the gameplay could likely be sourced, too, and I'd also remove the subsections from the release section, but that's neither here nor there. Could be easy fixes, depending on who has the time. Did you ping all major contributors? czar  20:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Still worth a ping, no? I left him a talk page message czar  03:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead is certainly inadequate, but that's not going to take too much to fix. The big one for me is the lack of sourcing. Gameplay and Marketing are lacking adequate sourcing, and I'm seeing Marketing sometimes use the official Xbox website as a source which I'm sure is not ok. Some of the refs have missing fields, and the date format is inconsistent. Echoing GamerPro64 and Czar's points, it seems to me the article has become outdated—Sequels should be expanded and moved into a Legacy section. I remember as a boy reading about the game in magazines, and I'm sure there was information out there about how the game was designed. This was a graphical titan when it came out (and was one of the first titles my brothers and I got with our big white 360). The prose is often sloppy, though I'm not sure how much of that would be more an FA issue than a GA issue. Development's prose just seems particularly off to me. Some of the phrases are awkward, and that big quote in the second paragraph feels like it's been used to give the paragraph more body, when it should be abbreviated. There's a sentence starting with "but", which is one of my pet peeves. But (ha) the Reception section looks pretty well-formed (not perfect). I think the issues would be solvable if someone wanted to put the time into it. CR4ZE (tc) 14:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I let this review stay up a little longer due to CR4ZE's comment to see if anyone would take up the mantle and improve the page. However, since the GAR started, only one edit was made to it. As such, I will be closing this review and will Demote the article of its Good Article Status. Hopefully someone will work on this page in the future. GamerPro64 23:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)