Comment - I'll be stopping by to look at the prose sometime tomorrow. ceranthor 03:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments from Ceranthor
Xbox Live achievements, - Might be useful to link to Xbox Live. I notice it is linked later in the section; it should be linked at first mention.
After fleeing the Covenant's destruction of the human world Reach, the human ship Pillar of Autumn made a random slipspace jump to avoid leading the Covenant to Earth and discovers a massive ringworld orbiting a gas giant. - Random usage of past tense.
Saber's Chief Operating Officer Andrey Iones recalled that the offer was "an opportunity we [could not] miss", as Saber had never before worked on a major game franchise and many team members were fans of Halo. - Citation?
The game was completed and released to manufacturing ("gold") on October 15, 2011. - What is "gold"?
the developers looked at how they used the third-party Havok physics engine to handle object positioning, velocities and collisions. - Previously you used the serial comma. Why did you stop?
show how environmental effects, improved lighting and new textures - Again, you've stopped using the serial comma here, but you just used it a couple sentences ago!
and it still wouldn't have been the experience [players] remember.":1 - Why is there a 1 after the reference?
Though Iones described Anniversary's one-year development cycle as a "very smooth ride", - Citation?
Microsoft launched the Halo Living Monument, consisting of a live-action short and a website to celebrate the ten years of completion of original Halo. - The last part of this sentence needs a copyedit, or it's missing a word or two.
Thirteen retail Microsoft Stores hosted launch events for Anniversary's November 15, 2011 - Thirteen should be 13, since later in the sentence you use 16, not sixteen.
It was the third best-selling Xbox 360 game in North America. - Ever? This is a bit vague as is.
avoiding "revisionist horrors" and Star Wars re-release moments. - Citation?
Aziz complemented the feature as "fantastic", considering its use in Anniversary to be more subtle and pleasing than in other games. - Citation?
Prose looks very, very good. ceranthor 01:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I've gone through and clarified some citations and made edits to the prose. For the last two notes in the "reception" section, the citations are provided directly at the end of the clause and at the end of the passage sourced; in the interest of keeping the prose legible I've tried to only place citations where necessary as opposed to every sentence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Excellent prose. ceranthor 04:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
"Players can switch between the original 'classic' graphics and new graphics" You haven't yet told us that there are "new graphics" so this is a bit out of context. Maybe change it to "Players can switch between the original 'classic' graphics and the graphics developed for the remake"?
"the original game's visuals are presented in high-definition, 16:9 widescreen as opposed to the original game" ???
Given the number of differences you've outlined in the Gameplay section, I don't necessarily agree with the wording "nearly identical" to kick it off. Maybe the core gameplay is nearly identical, but adding online multiplayer and co-op seems pretty significant.
Overall, the Gameplay section is pretty lackluster and disorganized, I think. It doesn't present a very clear narrative that says, these parts of the game are basically the same, and these are the parts that are different. This section doesn't meet 1a in my opinion.
Plot: "Master Chief" or "the Master Chief"?
The rest of it is pretty good—I think just the Gameplay section needs some TLC. --Laser brain(talk) 15:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Laser, thanks for the review. I've taken a stab at addressing some of the issues. I'm a bit stumped on options for the gameplay section though. I've tried shuffling around the info, but as it stands there's a paragraph to explain the gameplay, a paragraph for the graphics, a paragraph for additional features and then a paragraph for added multiplayer. Most of the sources focus on the additions, rather than the contrasts themselves; there's not really much that talks about what's "the same", they talk about what's different (and hence why it says "this is basically the same except for the gameplay mods, multiplayer and shiny coat of paint.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I'll take a shot at it today. The "original game's visuals ... as opposed to the original game" problem is still there. --Laser brain(talk) 12:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I'm conflating the issue here. What I am attempting to say is that when it was released, the game rendered out its graphics at standard definition 480p in a 4:3 ratio. The original graphics in the remake are rendered out at 720p and 16:9--they're they exact same graphics, but output at a higher resolution and different aspect ratio. Would "the game's original graphics…" help with the confusion? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you look at the change I made and make sure I didn't change the meaning? --Laser brain(talk) 12:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
You kind of did, but I've taken another stab at clarifying. That make more sense to you? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
It's fine. I'm happy to support at the point. --Laser brain(talk) 15:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Did I miss an image review above?
Pls check your duplicate links -- Xbox Live for example appears to be linked three times in the main body, but this script will show all the repeat instances. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Edited out some dupes using the script. The images were touched upon in the previous FAC (nothing's changed since then) but I don't think it's received a proper review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment. Some of my bullets from last time are still unaddressed. They aren't dire, but I'd like to see them addressed before I add my support. Other than my nitpicks (alas, this is FAC) and the source checks beyond my reach (listed in my notes), the rest of the article is excellent [[:|delicious]]. Good work czar·· 05:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Given the time this nom has been open, during which it has garnered a good deal of support for promotion and ticked all the boxes, I'm going to promote shortly. If there are still some minor outstanding points then perhaps they could be addressed via the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)