Talk:Alpha Protocol/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 12:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * I'd wikilink third-person perspective in the lead
 * "whose level caps are fifteen" - this isn't helpful; fifteen in comparison to what? I'd drop this, or just specify level caps exist without assigning an arbitrary number to it.
 * "a photojournalist with many contacts whom he meets in Taipei" - does he meet the photojournalist of the photojournalist's contacts in Taipei?
 * 'the game was a "Jason Bourne adventure"' - accordingly to whom?
 * "They also took inspiration from other games and films" - I'd separate the games and films, as in 'they took inspiration from games X, Y and Z, as well as films A, B and C', but up to you
 * "and can "never really sure" who their" - grammar in direct quote?
 * "sending quality assurance and cohesion strike teams avoid problems" - grammar
 * "to avoid competition with other blockbuster titles" - specifying what these were would be of interest, if the information is available of course
 * 'received the "Exclusive Assault Pack" and the "Stealth Weapons Pack"' - this could use some more explanation for non-gamer readers. Perhaps mention the packs give the players access to additional weapons, assuming that is the case
 * "found to be dumb" - this seems a bit un-encyclopeadic, I suggest rewording it
 * "calling boring when it tries to be serious" - grammar?
 * "Tan called it a strange hybrid with disappointing and average gameplay, and provocative RPG systems, and called it a divisive title" - this is a very awkward sentence (two used of 'called' reads poorly)
 * "Retrospectively, the game's reputation improved" - define retrospectively; mention what years these subsequent reviews came out
 * "and other games should learn from it" - syntax? How about 'and said that other games should learn from it"?
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * The 1UP source is dead. An archived version exists though:
 * Copyvio finds one match at 42%; I'd try and trim it down a bit:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Some of the prose is a bit clunky. I made some copyedits myself, but I think it could benefit from some more. I'm happy to pass it once the issues above are addressed though. Looks very good overall. Placing on hold. Freikorp (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * - Thanks for the review! I have addressed the issues you have mentioned above. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I'm happy to pass this now. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)