Talk:God of War (franchise)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 03:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I will start the review this coming week, but now i saw that the lead is kind of strange, mostly the first paragraph: I think it's too long. Regards. —Hahc21 04:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can do about that. JDC808 (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've broken the paragraph up so now there are three paragraphs in the lead instead of two.

I just noticed the first paragraph is about the same length lol. I have an idea, basically do some rearranging as seen here. JDC808 (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, lead seems Okay. I will follow a bit firther :)

Article body

Gameplay

• "The games are single-player video games" I spotted some kind of redundancy here.

Fixed.

Mmm i was thinking of someting like "The series is comprised of single-player games featuring a third person, fixed cinematic camera..."

Okay, I was just basically doing a quick fix for that, but yours is better.

• (comment) 5 references at the end is quite long, could you distribute them across the paragraph.

Done. The only reason I did that was because the sources were for each game and they referred to what's in the paragraph.

• "Magic is also used, with four different abilities usually acquired" the word 'usually' is needed?

The reason it says "usually" is because the two PSP games only have three magic abilities, and the cell phone game only has two. Would "generally" be a better word?

• "Minotaur Horns were also added as a possible find to increase" I don't completely understand the meaning of "find" in this sentence.

Reworded without using the word "find". How is it now?

• In the fourth paragraph, you start talking about Item and Fire meters without properly defining them. I found this confusing as i kept reading.

Defined.

• "Other chests found in the game, containing orbs, are marked with a corresponding color for the orbs (green, blue, and red)." And for what the orbs are?

• Ok, later in the text you say for what the orbs are, but i think you should write it before explaining how they can be obtained and such.

Rearranged text. How is it now?

• On the fifth paragrapgh, the first two sentences continue with the idea of the orbs before totally changing the subject. I think they belong better to the 4th paragraph.

Moved the two sentences to 4th paragraph.

• " on two teams of four where the teams" i spotted some kind of redundancy here.

Fixed. JDC808 (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Games

• "and is tasked by Athena with finding Pandora's Box" >> "to find" instead of "with finding" should be better?

Fixed.

• "Betrayal is the only game in the series to be released as a 2D side-scroller and released on a non-Sony platform." i think this may need a referencem but not sure.

Okay.

• "The PS Blog announcement also revealed that Todd Papy would be Game Director.[25]" is this really necessary. I see no info of this on the other paragraphs.

Removed. JDC808 (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Collections

• "and was published by Capcom[28] and was later released" what if we put a comma instead of the first "and" so we avoid redundancy?

Fixed.

• "The original God of War and God of War II were ported by Bluepoint Games and use the features of the PlayStation 3," there is something with this sentence that does not completely reads well. I think it may be "and use the features of the PlayStation 3"

Okay, I've replaced "and use the features of the PlayStation 3" with just "and feature".

Article body, part 2

Recurring characters

• "and exact vengeance follow" exact? What does the word means here?

Exact is being used as a verb here, which as a verb, it means 1.) To force the payment or yielding of; extort, or 2.) To demand and obtain by or as if by force or authority - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exact

We can remove the word if it's confusing.

• We have two back-to-back sentences starting with "Although". I think it's better of you find a replacement for the first one.

Okay, I've rearranged the sentence. How is it now?

Good.

Adaptations

• No issues

Music

• "Praised as a strong album, the album features a wide.." Redundancy of "album"

• Try with "Praised as strong, the album features.." it may work.

How about "Strongly praised, the album..."?

I don't think that "Praised as strong" and "Strongly praised" are the same. The first says that critic considered the album as "strong", while the second says that critics gave "strong" praise to the album.

Okay, changed. JDC808 (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• "than the previous installment." Mmm installment as a reference to the previous game, or the previous soundtrack? if it's in reference to the soundtrack, better if you write "release" or "score" or a similar word.

Okay, and it is referring to the previous soundtrack. I replaced "installment" with "soundtrack".

• "On November 2, 2010, God of War: Ghost of Sparta – Original Soundtrack from the Video Game was also released" the word "also" is needless.

Removed.

God of War Blood & Metal

• "The second track, "Shattering the Skies Above" by Trivium, was made into a music video.[74] The additional seventh track – "Even Gods Cry" by The Turtlenecks – was also made into a music video.[77]" I think it's better of you merge them together.

Merged.

• "1UP.com gave the EP a 2.5 out of 5 stating it's not offensive to the ears and mainstream listeners may enjoy the album."

1. I think that we've read "EP" quite enoguh on the previous paragraph, so i would be beter if you change it for another word like "album".

Changed.

1. Also, some text are diretcly copied from the source, so i think you should quotate "not offensive to the ears" and "mainstream listeners may enjoy" to avoid Copyvio.

Quoted.

• I can recommed the use of {{Infobox album}} here, but that's at your discretion.

Done. JDC808 (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment

• Sorry for the wait. I've been kind of busy and unable to continue the review. I hope to finish it tonight (UTC -4). Regards. —Hahc21 18:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh okay. No problem. JDC808 (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Article body, part 3

Critical reception

• "have received universal critical acclaim from review aggregates GameRankings and Metacritic." Technically wrong, as MC and GR do not review but compile, you might say that those games have received universal acclaim from most video game journalists, achieving high scores at review aggregates GR and MC.

I've reworded it to "have received universal critical acclaim from several review journalist as compiled by review aggregates GameRankings and Metacritic."

The only reason it was stated like that before is because on Metacritic's website, it says that if a game has received a score of 90 or above on their website, it has universal acclaim.

Great rewording. I know MC states that 90+ is universal critical acclaim, but the issue was that the sentence read like MC was the one reviewing the game hehe. Good.

• Although the section is well-written, i think it has too many details on the awards received by some games. I think this section should summarize the most relevant awards (a.k.a GoTY, top 25 lists and so on) and avoid other secondary awards, as they [could] distract the reader from the main theme of the section.

Okay. Removed some awards. Should anymore be removed?

No, now it keeps with the main topic without giving unnecessary detail.

• "The series has also received criticism." I think you could expand a bit further this sentence giving the reader a bit of general imput about what has been criticized.

Okay, how is it now?

Good.

Other appearances

• "Kratos has also been featured" i think that "also" is not needed.

Removed.

• "Kratos will also appear as a playable character" same as above.

Removed. JDC808 (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, i'm done with the prose comments. Now i will check the references and go back to you with the verdict. Regards. —Hahc21 16:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

References

• Ok, i know that work/publisher treatment is kind of confusing and it is not required for GA, so i won't mention it unless you want it. Notwithstanding, i've noticed a few consistency issues like:
• "Meta Critic" and "Metacritic" (R#83 and 85 as examples)

Fixed.

Almost. Now i see MetaCritic and Metacritic lol. You can fix it later.

• Sony Computer Entertainment and SCEA for the same website (refs #26 and 27 as examples)

Fixed. Sony Computer Entertainment is now only used on references that are not from the PlayStation.Blog

• Ref #96 says "Sony Computer Entertainment Inc."

Made it "Sony Computer Entertainment America Press Release" as it's a press release and is not posted from the blog.

• R#32 lacks most information.

Found a new source. Also added a source for the following date.

• "" and "SCEA" refs #34 and 35 as examples

• Some references say "Playstation.Blog" for the same website as SCEA and Sony Computer Entertainment of America, so i think you should write "PlayStation Blog. Sony Computer Entertainment of America"

Fixed. Been making them as PlayStation.Blog (SCEA) or SCEE where appropriate.

• Ref #48 is a reliable website? I don't know so i ask :)

I don't know for sure.

• Ref #49, #97, #98 says "IGN.com" while most others say "IGN"

Fixed

• Ref #62 "allgame" >> "Allgame

Fixed.

• GamePro goes italiziced, as well as The Hollywood Reporter

Fixed.

• Ref #94, #119 "1up.com" >> 1UP

Fixed.

• Ref #117 says "Game Trailers", while #50 says "Gametrailers.com"

Fixed.

• Ref #116 "ComputerAndVideoGames.com" >> Computer and Video Games

Fixed

• Ref #105 lacks source name (i assume is Spike TV)

Fixed.

• Ref #72, #74 uses a different date format than the rest

Fixed.

• Ref #71 iTunes >> iTunes Store (optional)

Fixed.

• Ref #66 lacks source name (i assume is SquareEnixMusic.com)

Fixed. Had a typo on "publisher" which caused it to not show in the references. JDC808 (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Verdict

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

—Hahc21 20:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for another great review process. JDC808 (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)