Talk:Donkey Kong 64/GA2

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 10:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look over this shortly. JAGUAR 10:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" "As ... Super Mario 64 breathed life into the 3D platforming genre,"" - unlink Super Mario 64 here as it's already been linked. Also, isn't the comma meant to be after the quote?
"their sights to the Sega Dreamcast and Sony PlayStation 2" - no need for 'Sony'. I would say 'Sega' seems redundant here too, but I think it's sort of a personal preference for me

Agreed, they are redundant, but I think this is the kind of redundancy that is helpful to a general audience (who may not know what those systems are, but may not need to look them up if understood that they're from Sega/Sony.

"Reviewers criticized the game's opening DK Rap.[22]" - why only one citation here? Do all of the reviewers criticising the DK Rap need to be there as it's a summary sentence? I'm still getting to grips with writing reception sections in this style myself!

This citation is the holy grail: a source that makes a summative declaration ("Most, though, criticised it for being a rubbish song."), so no need to stack sources to support the claim. I think the hardest part of losing the X-said-Y Reception format is deciding when a review's statement can stand without needing to attribute the thought to X magazine as a qualifier. czar 16:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The developer, Electronic Gaming Monthly (EGM) charged" - this should possibly be rephrased as it makes it sound like EGM is the developer
"and came from the Banjo-Tooie team when the Banjo project ended" - does this mean to say that the development of Banjo-Tooie ended when DK64 was being developed?

Yeah, some timeline issues here... (BT was completed after DK64 but the source said that BT dev staff worked on DK64)—rephrased czar 16:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of the issues have been addressed in the previous review, and the fact that it already meets the GA criteria, I may as well pass this now. The above points are only minor nitpicks and doesn't affect the outcome of the review in any way. This is looking very FA-worthy as it stands. JAGUAR 10:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, J—appreciate the review and good suggestions, as always! czar 16:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.