Talk:Perfect Dark (Game Boy Color video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

"Objectives can range from rescuing hostages to exploring areas and recovering items, such as keycards, explosives or laptop computers which are useful to hack into electronic devices." might need to be cleaned up.
- "At the time, Rare had the Game Boy team split into two, one for the Game Boy Color version of Donkey Kong Country and the other for Perfect Dark." - Might need to be "...Rare had its' 'Game Boy team split into two.."
"Criticism, however, was levelled at the game's difficult gameplay due to the lack of health and ammunition, and distinct lack of strategy overall." - "however" is not needed and could be seen as going against WP:WORDS. The reader can understand it without the "however". Same could be said for the following "On the other hand", even though that is not as bad.
"ripped off" could read as jargon. I get what you are saying, and I doubt any reader would not. However, it might be better to lay it out in something more encyclopedic.
Game Boyz is italicized in the prose but not in the reference.
I encourage you to find more for the "Gameplay" and the "Plot" sections. But you are bound by sources and made it detailed enough to meet the GA benchmark.
Wikilinking seems off. For example Game Boy Color is linked way down but not above. Double check your links to make sure they are not dupped (besides the lead and infobox but keep in mind that other factors do come into play)

Overall

You hit many things I look for plus some.

You did not overburden the lead with unneeded sources

You made sure to cite all quotes

The ref formatting is great (I personally do not like quotes but that is my reference v assisting in verification along with common practice)

You got the fictional vs encyclopedic tone down well

Images have FURs and you made sure not to go overboard with the use of copyrighted content
Wikilinking (and therefore the tone of someone familiar with games and someone not) is almost great (see above)
dab is good

no dead is good

Pass

The notes above are not bad enough to not pas this (please please please address them) since the article is so good. Editors at peer review might give you a harder time about grammar if you are going for FA (not saying it was bad but I do tend to be less critical so double check yourself).

GA review (see here for criteria)

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:

Cptnono (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article so quickly. I've fixed the issues you listed. If there is anything else that I should know, please let me know. <--Niwi3 (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2011 (CET)