Jump to content

Talk:MediEvil 2/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: ProKro (talk · contribs) 12:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Infobox

[edit]

checkY All good.

2. Lede

[edit]

Prose

  • ...second instalment in the MediEvil series and is the sequel to the 1998 game, MediEvil. – "...second instalment in the MediEvil series and a sequel to MediEvil." (The release year of the previous title really isn't neccessary and needlessly breaks the flow.)
  • ...after the events of the first game, the game follows series protagonist – "...after the events of the first game, it follows series' protagonist" (Possessive; "series's" also works; use personal preference)
  • rivival – revival
  • Victorian-era – Victorian era
  • attempts stop sorcerer – "attempts to stop sorcerer"
  • Development began after the success of the first game... – This is somewhat ambiguous as the definition of "success" is vague and success is usually considered timeless; I'd suggested changing it to something like "Development began shortly after the release of the previous title,..." or "Following the positive reception of the first game, Sony..." (Director himself says so in the 4. reference)
  • Sony commissioned SCE Cambridge Studio – "Sony Computer Entertainment commissioned SCE Cambridge Studio" (These are petty, I know, but are agreed MoS)
Now that I have read in again, I agree. Feel free to change it back to just Sony. ProKro (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original concepts of MediEvil 2... – "The original concept for MediEvil 2..." ("Concept of" implies that it already existed at the time (e.g. concept of gravity), whereas "concept for" suggests a future plan or idea)
  • Thanks, I think they had a sequel in mind when they finished the first game but it depended on whether or not it was successful. Anyway, I changed it to "concept for" JAGUAR  13:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Style

  • The game received mostly positive reviews from critics... – Should be a separate paragraph.
  • The reception part of the lead is short and I can't really expand it without repeating or crossing over to WP:JARGON, do you think it would be best to keep the lead to two paragraphs, like its predecessor? JAGUAR  13:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I overlooked that on the MediEvil article. As it is now, is perfectly fine.

3. Gameplay section

[edit]

Prose

  • The interface and gameplay style did not differ much from the previous title. – "The interface and gameplay style do not differ much from the previous title." (Tense)
  • MediEvil 2 sees players once again in control of Sir Daniel Fortesque... – "In MediEvil 2, player once again takes control of Sir Daniel Fortesque." (On most video game articles "player" is used instead of "players" in single-player titles' articles)
  • close-combat / longer-range – "Close-combat"? I'd suggest using "close range" / "longer-range" -> "long-range" unless you mean to compare the two in which case it should then read "close range x and longer-ranged y".
  • ...forms of weaponry such as close-combat swords and clubs to longer-range crossbows or catapults. – Two ways to go with this. 1. "...forms of weaponry, such as from close range swords and clubs to long-range crossbows or catapults." or 2. "...forms of weaponry such as close range swords or clubs and long-range crossbows or catapults." (Basically, if there is "to" there has to be "from" to form a "from A to Z" span)
  • MediEvil 2 contains... – It contains... (No need to repeat the name; it is clear to what the pronoun is referring.)
  • Dan is also able to tear off his skeletal arm and use it as a club to fight off enemies during the early levels. – Is this a new feature? If so, I'd suggest noting that; something like "Dan is also able to tear off his skeletal arm and use it as a club to fight off enemies during the early levels, a skill absent in the previous title." will do.
  • ...new weapons featured in MediEvil 2 consist of pistols, shotguns and a Gatling guns. – "...new weapons featured in MediEvil 2 include pistols, shotguns and a Gatling guns." will work. (This implies a list. Unless, of course, these weapons are actually made up of pistols, Gatling guns and other to form some kind of Franken-weapons unique to the game.)
  • ...Winston to teach him new moves or to save the player's game between long levels. – "...Winston to learn new moves or to save the player's progress between (longer?) levels." (Does Dan teach Winston, or does Winston teach Dan? If the latter is the case, use "learn". Also, "between longer levels"; is saving unavailable in/after/during implied shorter levels? If not, I'd suggest removing "longer" completely.)
  • It will deplete completely if Dan drowns or falls from a great height – "It also depletes completely if he drowns or falls from a great height." (Tense)
  • ...will restart from the last known save point. – "...restarts from the last known save point." (Tense; same as the last one)
  • ...Life Bottles, which will automatically refill... – "...Life Bottles, which automatically refill..."

4. Plot section

[edit]

Prose

  • demon-like – "demonlike" is more common.
No need. Demonlike is common in certain dictionaries (it's an older spelling, used mostly in older English translations of Bible) while others give both examples. Since it's a compound adjective no matter how you look at it, either is fine; this was just a personal preference; I should've noted that. ProKro (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...named Kiya, who later becomes Dan's love interest. – ...named Kiya; Dan's future love interest. (Certain future instead of descriptive adjective clause)
  • shock of Dan – "Dan's shock" (Optional, both are fine; possessive form is more usual nowadays though)
  • Discovering a time machine... – Better use "Having discovered a time machine..." or "After discovering a time machine..." (Dangling participle)
  • ...pages from him and uses it – it -> them (plural)
  • However, Dan manages to turn the demon... – "However" is unnecessary unless that sentence is supposed to contradict another which it currently doesn't. "Dan manages to turn the demon..." will work.
  • on his dying breath – with his last/dying breath (Expression)
  • together – unnecessary in this case (Pleonasm)
  • If the player has collected all the Chalices, Dan and Kiya will instead go for a ride on the time machine, which takes them back to the time of the first MediEvil. – "If the player has collected all the Chalices, Dan and Kiya go for a ride on the time machine which takes them back to the time of the first MediEvil instead." (No comma before which; restrictive clause)

5. Development section

[edit]

Prose

  • Sony – same thing as before, Sony Computer Entertainment.
  • ...in development and instead the process was handed over to James Shepherd. – "...in development so, instead, the project was handed over to James Shepherd." or ""...in development so the project was handed over to James Shepherd instead."
  • kept prisoner – "held prisoner" is more common.
  • Sir Daniel Fortesque had to free him... – "Sir Daniel Fortesque would have to free him...", "Sir Daniel Fortesque's objective would be to free him..." or "and have Sir Daniel Fortesque free him..." (Tense)
  • Shepherd settled MediEvil 2... – "Shepherd settled on MediEvil 2..."
  • Victorian Era – Victorian era
  • SCE Camrbdige – SCE Camebridge; or "Cambridge studio" as used previously in the text. (Typo)
  • Various cut features from... – "Various features cut from..."
  • ...and cut levels that featured puzzles. – "cut" is redundant here as it is implied that these levels are some of the cut features.
  • artificial intelligence logic – Just "artificial intelligence". However, if it's referring to computer-controlled characters and their use of game-specific logic, specific to the game, use "NPC logic".

6. Reception section

[edit]

Prose

  • graphics rich detail – I believe this was meant to read "detailed graphics" or "rich, detailed graphics".
  • new additions of cutscenes – "new addition of cutscenes" (Single addition as a whole)
  • GameRevolution – Should be "Game Revolution".
  • framrate – frame rate (Also a link would be useful)
  • Sparks noted similar concerns with confusing level layouts and despite hailing them "a joy to explore". – Use "Sparks also noted similar concerns with confusing level layout."; the second part of the sentence is unnecessary as it is already used in the previous paragraph.
  • Stephen Frost of Daily Radar – Daily Radar should be italicized and linked; also you might want to change it to "Daily Radar's Stephen Frost"; article's established style used with other mentioned reviewers.
[edit]
  • External links

checkY All good.

  • Images

checkY Rationale(s) provided.
checkY No copyright issues.

  • Categories

checkY All good.

  • References

checkY Inline citations
Question? No dead links
checkY No bare urls
checkY Verifable
Question? Reliable

Comments

[edit]
  • GameTrailers ref. (1.) isn't the footage of gameplay (at least not for me). Maybe a wrong link? I'd suggest using a written source instead of a video; IGN ref. (7.) seems to cover most of it. Simply swap them, it'll do fine.
  • I think I used the wrong link, so I replaced it with IGN's review which does mention the gameplay. My laptop is about to run out of battery so I'll try and find the correct link shortly, if not I'll remove the GameTrailers ref entirely. JAGUAR  14:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Very well then. ProKro (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DailyRadar ref. is used to corroborate "MediEvil 2 consist of pistols, shotguns and a Gatling guns." despite it not mentioning any of it; again IGN ref. does so - no biggie.
  • (Question?) Is "MediEvil Boards" (3.) a reliable source for this? Looks like a fan forum; but if it's "legit", I have no objection. If not, we'll need a different reference.
  • It was a old forum set up by ex-developers and Cambridge studio staff so it should be OK as long as it's not a fan forum (which WP:VG/RS discourages. The posts I used were exclusive emails from the developers that were put onto the forum, so that should be fine? JAGUAR  16:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see – then it's fine by me. Yes, those will do fine. ProKro (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Development section, MediEvil Boards (3.) and GameSpot (4.) references are used to corroborate "Chris Sorrell, who previously served as director of the first game, was not involved in development" despite neither of them mentioning that. They only say James Shepherd is the director; so I'd remove that bit to keep it simple.
  • Chris Sorrell was not credited in the manual nor the in-game credits and there is no mention of him being involved with this game, I could reference it by using the manual's credits or remove it entirely... I have added a reference to the game's manual JAGUAR  16:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Manual's a great addition. It's always great to have a printed source on stuff that preceded Wikipedia. Problem solved. ProKro (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8. Review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and Manual of Style:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Additional comments

[edit]

Just a couple of suggestions, these are all optional:

  • Predecessor, first game, previous game, previous instalment and previous title are all interchangeable so I'd suggest using one or two and sticking with them all through the article.
Noted. ProKro (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any verifiable sales figures you could throw in? They would make for a nice addition.
  • Unfortunately nothing that is reliable or approved the WP:VG/S, I found this one website that gave the statistics of its predecessor but it was on the VG:RS blacklist! It would be a great addition though, and I wish I could find one for the first MediEvil as I plan to re-nominate it for FAC soon. JAGUAR  17:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Tough luck. ProKro (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is only a handful of references so I'd suggest archiving the URLs to prevent link rot.
Great. ProKro (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: Article is concise and focused, albeit riddled with minor errors like typos and phrasing. Text is easy to read, it is interesting and engaging. References are few but mostly verifiable; only one is dubious at the moment.

In my opinion – this is an easy pass. Minor cleanup and rephrasing and the article's good-to-go. I'd also like to apologize in advance for any typos of my own as I typed this out pretty quickly. That's it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask away. I'll be sure to give it a look asap. ProKro (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ProKro: thanks for the detailed review! I think I have addressed all of your concerns, if you would like to take a look? I have used the game's credits in the manual as a reference to Sorrell's absence and I have also kept the hyphen in "demon-like", if that's OK. Regarding the lead, I usually keep it into two compact paragraphs so that as long as it summarises, then it wouldn't have to go into excessive detail. If you want I could expand the reception part, but I'm unsure if it will be enough for its own paragraph. I have addressed everything else.
Great job overall, that was quick! I'll just have a quick read through again and fix any minor blemishes should I find them. ProKro (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Looks great; Archiving and that one broken link aside, it's a pass. Just chuck those in when you have them. Congratulations! ProKro (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I have the references and will implement them now. JAGUAR  22:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MediEvil_2/GA1&oldid=1085917289"