Talk:Banjo-Kazooie (video game)/GA1

GA Review
Reviewer: Electroguv (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that's my first time reviewing an article, but I think I should handle this easily.

The review
OK, let's start. According to WP:WIAGA, the good article should fulfill the following conditions.

1a: the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.


 * Yup, the prose is quite solid, though I tweaked a line or two in Plot section.

1b: it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * It's okay here too. The lead is comprehensive, the sections are here, and the writing avoids WTW. All right, let's move to the next step.

2a: it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout.


 * All the sources meet WP:VG/S criteria. Fine. Next.

2b: it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.


 * Pass. On to the next.

2c: it contains no original research.


 * No sir, not this time! All right, my job here is done, so let's move to point 3.

3a: it addresses the main aspects of the topic.


 * Aha, here come the first problems. I'd like to see some info about the soundtrack in Development, as it is an essential part of the game (I noticed that your previous GAs and FAs also lack that one). The text about the next-gen version in Legacy needs to be equally divided between Development and Reception, methinks.
 * Thank you for reviewing the article. I've added a paragraph about the game's soundtrack in the development section. I disagree however about dividing the xbla info between the development and reception. In my opinion, sections should appear in chronological order to better reflect the game's history (concept -> development -> marketing -> release -> reception -> legacy). It feels strange if you talk about the xbla re-release in development and then come back to the original game in the reception section. Besides, information about the actual development of the xbla re-release is fairly sparse; it's basically a re-release, not a remake. Furthermore, if I move the xbla info to the development and reception sections, the legacy section will only have one paragrapth which "jumps" from Nuts & Bolts to the Banjo-Tooie re-release without even mentioning the BK re-release. I could repeat info about the BK re-release in the legacy section but redundant info is not good for readers to comprehend the article easily. Overall, the simpler, the better. That's how I see it. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree with your point about XBLA. And, good job with the music paragraph, it's pretty great! Electroguv (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

3b: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.


 * All right, it's a pass. Next stop: point 4.

4: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.


 * No problems here. Next.

5: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * It's stable, which means pass.

6a: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.


 * Images are properly tagged and have valid rationales, so that's OK.

6b: images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * And...pass! That's the final one I believe.

Total
Well, let's sum up. The article is well-written, decently organized and meets the criterias listed above, so I can definitely call it a Good Article. If only Banjo and Kazooie were here to feel the moment... Electroguv (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)