"the total time the player took to complete the game is shown"-->the total time taken to complete the game is shown obviously, the player took the time
"Metroid II features the Space Jump, a new suit enhancement that allows Samus to access otherwise unreachable areas. Metroid II sees the return of Samus's Morph Ball, a mode in which she curls up into a ball to travel through small tunnels. " Two consecutive sentences with the same sentence start, diversify.
"newly-discovered" No hyphens in -ly adverbs.
"she notices the mutations that each creature exhibits; they grow from small jellyfish-like creatures into large, hovering, lizard-like beasts." Ambiguous wording, is it referring to the mutations or the creature? Obviously, I know that you are referring to the creatures, but the sentence is not as clear as it could be.
"Samus then proceeds to return "
I'll return for development and reception tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
"which appear in every Metroid game"-->which have appeared in every Metroid game
"Often considered the weakest game in the franchise, Metroid II still received generally favorable reviews, receiving an aggregated score of 80% from Game Rankings. Due to its success, Nintendo included the game in its Player's Choice marketing label." The placement of the second sentence (which discusses its "success") is confusing, coming right after the sentence that says the game was the weakest in the series.
"Despite those shortcomings" Comma after here.
"Believing that Metroid II would please fans of the original Metroid, Allgame also noticed that the backgrounds were more detailed in this Game Boy iteration."-->Allgame believed that Metroid II would please fans of the original Metroid and noticed that the backgrounds were more detailed in this Game Boy iteration.Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
My comments have been addressed, but I'd like to hear from other reviewers before supporting. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, 1a and 1c. Not impressed by the prose in the lead, but I didn't go further. The research has been lazily done—it needs vast improvement before examination of the prose is really possible. Start with back issues of EGM and Nintendo Power, both of which are sure to have covered this in detail.
"and the only one on the Nintendo Game Boy." Sounds like you mean physically on it. Maybe, "the only one developed for the Nintendo Game Boy."
"In Metroid II, the developers added round metal shoulders on Samus's Varia Suit to differentiate it from her Power Suit since both looked similar without color in the Game Boy's limited black and white color palette." Maybe "For Metroid II"; also, "without color" is redundant here. "looked similar in the ... black and white" gets you the same meaning.
"Samus reaches the Queen Metroid, and kills it." Smoother without the comma.
"follows her to the gunship" suggests a level of familiarity we don't have. What gunship?
"Metroid II is often considered the weakest game in the franchise." Statements like this always raise red flags for me and encourage me to check the source. "Often" is a nebulous term, and the way you've worded it suggests the source aggregated several opinions to make this statement. I'm not satisfied they've done this. In fact, the GameTrailers video is rather weak as a source and you've used it to back up some pretty important claims in the article. For example, "While improving Samus's design, the change also made the environments feel cramped." According to whom? The person who produced the GameTrailers video? We need better sources than this.
I copyedited your complaints, except for the "weakest game" one - that probably needs to say "Gametrailers considered it the weakest game in the franchise."--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - for the external links, the question is WHY "Metroid II at IGN" - why IGN as oppose to other gaming news sites?
other than that, the other interesting thing is WHY do we not choose actually signficant articles for FAC...WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Featured Articles are chosen on the quality of the article not the importance of the subject matter. IGN is a news site for video games, so I don't understand that question. Jay32183 (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
the second one is not a real question. it's just for you to ponder. the first one was missing the 'other' before "gameing news sites."WhatisFeelings? (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Well pondering on that question still means you're missing the point of FA. Jay32183 (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose for now, mainly prose and comprehensiveness issues. I'm concerned about how brief the gameplay is. I think that some terms and elements should be clarified right then and there rather than relying on knowledge of video games and/or the series. For example, "in which the player controls the protagonist Samus Aran on the fictional planet SR388". Who is Samus Aran? And the wording implies that she isn't fictional, only the planet is. The reception section is sorely lacking contemporary reviews; I will try and find some info via my print archives and send you what I find. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree with other reviewers that the prose needs another pass, but it's not the major issue, so I won't bog the page down with a list of passages that need tweaking (unless requested). What does concern me is that which David touches on above, but it goes beyond the lack of contemporary reviews to the article as a whole. Not one secondary source is cited from the year of the game's release, which does leave me wondering if the article has been as thoroughly researched as it could be; I find it difficult to believe that complete coverage can be provided retrospectively, especially with regard to its development, marketing and reception. If you tell me that I'm wrong about this, and that there's nothing in magazine articles from 1992 that provides more development information than the retrospective sources, then I'm happy to take your word for that. The recentism in the reception section would remain a concern, however, and should favour 1992 reviews over those from sites such as IGN and 1UP.com; though retrospective sources are good for reporting the critical consensus in 1992. The Game Rankings score in particular has been calculated using only one review from that year (and from only seven reviews overall—too small a sample size from which to calculate an accurate score). It also seems telling that the article contains no information about how well the game did commercially; something that magazines from 1992 are likely to have covered. SteveT • C 08:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.