Talk:Black & White (video game)/GA1

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

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 07:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead

 * The publisher field in the infobox is a bit messy. EA Games or Electronic Arts? Which version does Sold-Out Software published?
 * I think Sold-Out re-released a budget version. According to the box, they're an authorised licensee of EA. They didn't originally publish any version of the game. I'm not sure what to do with it, so I got rid of it for now. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The lead can be slightly longer so that it fit the article's overall length.
 * Black & White is a 2001 video game developed by Lionhead Studios and published by Electronic Arts for Microsoft Windows. - genre should be put in the first sentence, not the second one.
 * A primary theme is the concept of good and evil, and the atmosphere is determined by the player's behaviour and which side is taken. - "which side is taken" seems like there is an option for players to choose.
 * I misunderstand this sentence. I am sorry about that.
 * There is. I'm not sure what your point is here? Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The game won awards from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences, and the Electronic Entertainment Expo's Game Critics Awards - Instead of mentioning all of them, I would simply say that it won some awards. These are probably too detailed for the lead.
 * I'm not sure how to do that without making it too short and vague. You've already said the lead is too short, and by doing this, it'll be even shorter. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say you should generally add more stuff about the game's development/release into the section. I think they should be able to help you to buff up the entire section. I think you can list one example of an award, but not all.

Story

 * Soon after, a creature is chosen - Is this really an important plot point? It sounds very strange in the section.
 * and becomes the principal antagonist - sort of unnecessary. You are telling a story. You don't need to mention that he is the antagonist.
 * Nemesis then destroys his former creature and attacks the village - What exactly is a creature? Can the plot section be slightly expanded to mention that? What is its significance? Is it some kind of pets, or some kinds of wildlife>
 * The plot section has been moved to after the gameplay. The reader should understand what a creature is now? Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * A mysterious vortex opens that the player enters to escape Nemesis - escape "from" Nemesis.
 * I'm not sure that's necessary. It seems redundant, and doesn't add anything to the sentence. I'm seeing an opportunity for ellipsis here, taking advice from User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * After the curses are lifted and the piece of the Creed is claimed, - How it was lifted?
 * I would really consider putting the gameplay section first. The plot section sounds confusing without it.

Gameplay

 * which can move or throw people and objects, - "which can move" seems unnecessary. I would suggest "an animated on-screen hand which can be used to throw people and objects, tap houses to wake their occupants, cast miracles, and perform other actions." What do you mean by "throw"?
 * A patch was released that allows the Hand to be controlled by an Essential Reality P5 Glove, a virtual reality glove. - something for the development/release section.
 * The quote in the gameplay section is not needed. It disrupts the overall article's flow.
 * making buildings and getting the villagers to breed. - "making" buildings sound strange.
 * The most important building is the Temple - I don't think it is necessary to stress that it is "the most important".
 * Worshipping generates the power needed to cast miracles. How many villagers worship is controlled at the Village Centre. Which miracles are available depends on those available at the player's villages. - I would move them to the next paragraph which is mainly talking about worshiping.
 * Is there any expansion on the multiplayer skirmish mode? It seems to present very little information only.
 * Teaching is performed by using a Reinforcement learning system - should be "r" instead of "R".
 * There are three types - What has three types?
 * Leashes. The previous sentence talks about leashes, and as I understand it, the assumption of a previously mentioned subject improves the flow? Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread this part. You can ignore my comments about the leashes


 * Sentences is rather short in this article. You can actually merge some of them together. Short sentences seem to be making ideas to feel disjointed.
 * The Temple provides a pen, the creature's main rest area. - What is the significance of this? Is it even tie to the gameplay?
 * I believe the creature grows faster sleeping in the pen, but I'll need to check. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Development

 * devoted the entire development time to the game - this does not make sense. Do you mean that he work on the project full-time, or the entire team at Lionhead is working on it?
 * I need to check the sources, but I believe it's the former. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Molyneux liked the idea of controlling people in a world from Populous, - Populous should be italicized
 * The team questioned and competed with each other, and the result was better quality work than expected - According to who?
 * Molyneux, I think. I need to check the sources. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * and although the design hadn't been finalised, the game incorporated elements of Populous and Dungeon Keeper. - You can just say it drew inspirations from those titles. and although the design hadn't been finalised in particularly seems to be something unnecessary.
 * He said of the idea, "Black and White is atonement for all my previous game design sins" - You can paraphrase it to "He hoped that the game could be a refinement when compared to his previous games"
 * and the team doubted the game as it ended up would get released - so they doubted the game because it would be released? I don't quite understand this logic.
 * I need to check the sources, but I think it means there was doubt the game would end up as it did. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I would move The entire game, including the tools and libraries had to be written from scratch. after the trial-and-error stuff.
 * and were trying to make the most of their talents - I would strongly suggest that when it comes to subjective comments, you should mention the one who say that.
 * Eurogamer noted that certain miracles have a "distinct sword and sorcery flavour", and that Temples resemble wizard's towers. Indeed, Temples were originally called Citadels and some sported a mediaeval, fairy tale look - Eurogamer comments/preview is not necessary in a development section. You should only mention that "Temples were originally called Citadels and some sported a medieval, fairy tale look"
 * The idea to make the advisers characters came from programmer Alex Evans. - This Evans is the founder of Media Molecule, so he has an article.
 * He wanted wanted them to interact and to have their lips synchronised. - He "wanted" them
 * They sent a list of three thousand bugs to be fixed - wikilink "bugs"
 * I wikilinked the first instance of "bugs". Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As the end was near - That sounds unnecessarily dramatic.
 * I would really recommend you to merge sentences together. They are way too short.
 * Don't really need to mention "Peter Molyneux" every time you mention him. You should simply say "Molyneux".
 * Lionhead announced that the game went gold on 16 March 2001. - What does "went gold" means/indicates? Normal readers may not understand what it means.
 * I don't know; that's just what the source says. Should I get rid of it? Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Software release life cycle


 * You should mention the reversible cover art somewhere in the development section.
 * Not sure where or how, especially as there's little about it I can find. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Subsections would be something great for this huge development section.
 * I think that what they showed at E3 aren't really important enough to be mentioned in this section. They aren't really significant.

Reception

 * The reception section has way too much quotes. You need to paraphrase many of them.
 * All the magazines here should be italicized. (Game Informer, PC Gamer, Edge, Games Magazine, Computer Games Magazine, GamePro etc.)
 * No criticism in these reviews at all?
 * You put many quotes there, but in some cases, you do not mention why they have such thoughts.
 * Any information on the game's sales?
 * Is "Editor's choice" really an award?
 * The citations feel quite messy. Stuff like [1]:4,5,12,14,17,30[2]:26[4]:13 does not look good, though this is not part of the GA scope.
 * You need to create a section about the game's expansion and sequel.

Overall
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list corporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

There are some problems with the article. Ideas feel slightly disjointed, so I think you should look over the article and see whether there are sentences that can be merged together. The reception section has way too many quotes, which must be paraphrased before promoting. When all the issues are fixed, the article should be good to go. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't finished making all the changes yet, but you think it's a bad idea for the citations to be at the end of each paragraph? I cite multiple pages of the same sources multiple times, and I'm not sure if there's a better way of doing it, Another thing, I use the term "bespoke" in the development section. Is there a term that complies with MOS:COMMONALITY? That term is listed at Glossary of British terms not widely used in the United States. I think the source uses the term "custom-written", but that's American as far as I understand it. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with these citations is that there are the page numbers.They looks very clumsy, but they are outside of the GA scope, so even if you leave them alone, this can still pass. (I would honestly say that you would be fine without citing the page number at all) Citations should be found in the end of each sentence, not each paragraph. I would suggest you change it to "custom-made". This does not sound like an American word to me, just an explanation of what the word means. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Driveby comment- one way to fix the page numbers is to do what I did at Wolfenstein 3D - have the book/manual in a "Sources" section, then have a reference "Book, pp. 3, 9", so that the page numbers are in the reference section instead of the text, without having to repeat the whole book citation over and over. -- Pres N  21:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still nowhere near finished, but aren't page numbers required for FA? Surely anything that helps this reach FA also helps it reach GA? I used the word "custom" instead, as I'm not aware of it being specific to any engvar. What headings would you suggest for the development section? Adam9007 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I may have to try that here, and especially on Ridge Racer (video game), where I recently had to abandon a FAC due to an incident that caused me to go on a wikibreak. The page numbers in citations was a major nitpick there. I'll come back to that article after this. Adam9007 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't review FA, so I don't know its criteria. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully, most of the issues are now fixed. How close is this to meeting GA now? I still need to finish sorting out the citations though; I should have plenty of time to do that and other stuff on Sunday (tomorrow). Adam9007 (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This needs a major copyedit before it's anywhere near to B class, let alone GA status. A quick read of the first couple of paragraphs made that clear. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your tagging in this edit. All of that should be obvious through the context. Type of what? Scroll, obviously. Not required for what? For progression through the story, obviously. Reward who? The player; who else? Whose task? The Silver Scrolls' of course (performed by the player, obviously). Do we really need to explicitly state every detail? Adam9007 (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , you don't need to explicitly state every detail, but you do need to produce good, clear, and crisp writing if you want this up to GA status. I'm not here to try and get a rise out of you, and for you to respond in this manner is not a good idea: this is not my first time doing a GA review. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But isn't not stating the obvious key to maintaining flow? I've reworded it, so hopefully it shouldn't matter now. Adam9007 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that these problems originated from these short/occasionally choppy sentences. As I have said above, they made ideas look disjointed, and will probably cause confusion. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a deadline for this? I should (hopefully) have this all fixed in the next couple of days. Adam9007 (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The deadline should be tomorrow, according to the official guideline. However, my approach is that as long as someone is working on the article, I will not close it unless the nominator requests it/abandon the nomination. You can take your time refining the article. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How are the citations now? Have I done enough merging of sentences? How far is there still to go? Adam9007 (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The citations look fine. (Its layout isn't part of GA requirement at all). I have several more questions:
 * Problems were encountered, and the team doubted the game would end up as it did - What does this mean?
 * I think the problems of having short sentences is not limited to the gameplay section. It happens throughout the article, especially the development section. I'm sorry for not being clear.
 * The reception section in its current state is improved but I think it needs further paraphrasing.

— AdrianGamer (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How's the article now? Does the awards section need tidying up? I've been wondering if I ought to just replace the whole section with a table like Awards table3? Adam9007 (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the first paragraph of the reception section needs slightly more paraphrasing. Is Gamezilla a reliable source? For the award sections, I would definitely prefer having a list like this one. It is slightly more easier to read, but this is optional. Once these are fixed I think most content issues I raised above are fixed, unless User:Drmies has more comments on it. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'll need a few days; I can't guarantee I can get to it today. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless I beat you to it; I should hopefully be able to do this tonight. Yes, Gamezilla is a reliable source according to WikiProject_Video_games/Sources. Adam9007 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That table is too complicated for me to construct manually, so I used Awards table 3. I don't know what years the last one is, and apparently the game was nominated for several more, but I can't reliably source it. Is the first paragraph okay now? Adam9007 (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the last two paragraphs in the article.
 * "Certain critics, after spending more time...":
 * "Certain" is really not precise; in the end, only one publication (not individual critics) are referenced here.
 * "spending more time reviewing" sounds like original research, high school writing. There is no indication that the same reviewer spent more time and changed their mind; rather, it's the one publication that published a later review with a different evaluation.
 * "They cited...among reasons it ultimately disappointed" is a bit wordy.
 * That IGN mentions the game as overrated is unclear: did they report their own opinion, or others' opinions? Is it important? And if not (there seems to be no changing of minds after more time reviewing), perhaps it should be cut, and the first two sentences brought up into the previous paragraph.
 * "Black & White was awarded...":
 * What is "the Best of E3"? I assume it's some competition, but it's not wikilinked or explained so its importance is not clear, 1999 (and later 2000) should probably be in parentheses. "IGN named Black & White as the Best of E3 2000's Most Innovative game" makes me think IGN runs that Best of E3 show, but the capitalization of "Most Innovative game" is inconsistent (and it's inconsistent with "Editor's choice award" earlier on).
 * "The following year..." sentence is unclear: the following year at the same competition?
 * For E3 we had "At the Best of E3", and later we have "In the 2002 Game Developers Choice Awards": why there are different prepositions is not clear to me.

These are not just simple copyedits, so I can't fix them for you. I mean, I could, but you might not like it, and what Best of E3 is, for instance, I can't explain. I see now that there is something called Electronic Entertainment Expo; linking that and explaining, in a few words, is the way to go--although that article doesn't indicate there are "official" awards. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Even I'm confused by all this E3, Game Critics, and IGN stuff. My understanding is that E3 is a show. Best of E3 seems to be some competition, and to make matters even more confusing, both Game Critics and IGN have Best of E3 awards (of the same names to boot), which seem to be different. For example, Black & White won the 2000 Game Critics Best of E3 Best of Show, but for IGN's 2000 Best of E3 Best of Show, it came second. So there seems to be 2 different competitions of the same name, with awards of the same names, both for the same show. Typing bestofe3 dot com redirects you to IGN's Best of E3 site. It's all extremely confusing. As for wording, I've reworded the other bits, but I don't see where "The following year" is. Didn't I delete it? I haven't listed to IGN's podcast, so I don't yet know the details about that. Adam9007 (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Adam, I'm sure all of it is fixable--in such cases, the better the sources are, the more easily it's fixed. I gained a better understanding of E3 after looking at the relevant articles and I'm sure together we can work it out. It's late and I just wrote up something really sad so I'm throwing in the towel for tonight; let's get back to it tomorrow. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Anything left? (other than the IGN podcast). In the absence of anything major to do, I'm working on Theme Park (video game) at the moment. Adam9007 (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have said above, I think most content issues are addressed, so in my opinion, the article should be good to go. If has no additional comment then it can be promoted. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I opened up a section at random, and this is the result. You can't promote something to GA if it still needs copyediting, nor should reviewer and writer rely on someone else to do the copyediting for them. GA requires good writing--not average writing with errors and infelicities. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait: from the lead, "the game was highly anticipated. Ports for games consoles were in development, but cancelled. The game was noted..." That note about ports is not connected to the preceding or the following. Plus, there's nothing else in the article that I see about ports. Also, "the creature's set a Guinness World Record"--that's grammatically incorrect, and I don't know what the intent was or how to fix it. "ascinated with influencing people in a world since Populous"--it is unclear what "since Populous" is supposed to modify, or what "influencing people in a world" means. I guess that "world" means something technical, but that's not properly signaled here. "Multiplayer is supported" is, I gather, acceptable grammar in Wikipedia game articles, but it sure is ugly. Look--this is just the lead. That's at least five problems, and I fixed a few more along the way. I understand that this article was already substantial when y'all came to it, but if you take it over and take it to GA, you have to take ownership of all the old parts too--I see now that there was something in the old lead about ports; this was modified and kept, but its modification made it incomprehensible and material was placed around it that had no relation to it, nor was the information ever sourced or explained. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The creature's AI set a Guinness World record. There's info about ports in the development section, and the note in the lead is connected to the development summary. And there are 3 types of leash; I'm not sure what else "There are three types" could be referring to? Adam9007 (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is going to be my last comment. a. "AI setting a world record" is unclear, to say the least; what does a world record in AI even mean? b. I don't even see the word "port" in the development section. Even if it is there, and despite your protest, those sentences in the lead have nothing to do with each other: that the game took three years to develop is unrelated to ports for game consoles is unrelated to artificial intelligence. c. I don't know what else it could be referring to, but it's kind of weird to be talking about "a leash" and say how it can be used, and then say that there are three kinds of leashes. I have spent more than enough time on this article and made enough edits to prove the point that it needs serious copyediting. That you cannot see that, worse, that you keep arguing that I am wrong when the evidence is in the edit history, that is your problem--if you can't see the problems then obviously you can't fix them. That's fine, but don't expect a GA-stamp of approval. Just now I saw yet another error (hint: it's in the sentence that starts "At E3 2000"). So no, GA status denied (sorry, but content is not the only thing) until serious copyediting has taken place. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of the development section is:

"A PlayStation version was in development and scheduled for release in summer 2001,[63] and a Dreamcast version in late 2001.[64] Both were cancelled.[65][66] PlayStation 2 and Xbox versions were due for release in 2002.[67] Versions for the Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance were proposed, but never materialised. A company called M4 would have co-developed alongside Lionhead, but Electronic Arts weren't interested in the Game Boy.[68][69]"

Are you saying you want me to change the word "version(s)" to "port(s)" or vice versa? EDIT: I boldly did it. The creature's AI set a record for complexity; I have added that to the lead, but the lead shouldn't go into too much detail, as that's for the body, which explains the record further. Adam9007 (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, I've fixed the issues raised. But I may have screwed the lead up; I don't see how else I can keep the topics separate. Adam9007 (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done some copy editing per Drmies. It's amazing what a little strategic distance can do isn't it? I didn't see these issues before. Adam9007 (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since Drmies decided that that would be his last comment, I think the best action is to request another reviewer to request this. From my point of view/GA guideline, GA doesn't need exceptional writing. As long as it adheres to most grammatical rules it should have no problem. A third reviewer is needed. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a third opinion rather than in depth review, but it's an important point. The first of the GA criteria is "Well-written": the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. This is not exceptional writing, but rather competent writing throughout. Yet I found several significant errors in the lead section, and more in Gameplay, at which point I stopped. (For example: Gold ones initiate a significant event, and silver ones give a task to perform and reward upon completion, although are not required.) My very strong recommendation is that you submit the article immediately to the Guild of Copy Editors; at the moment, they're taking about three weeks to complete a request, and this review could be held open pending completion of the copy edit if you wish. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why don't you state what the errors are? I might be able to fix them without waiting 3+ weeks for the Guild of Copy Editors. Adam9007 (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Adam9007, there were simply too many issues in just the lead and the opening of Gameplay; I don't have time to do a comprehensive copyedit of the whole article, which is 3642 words of prose, and in my considered judgment that's what the article needs, and what would be required to come up with a list of changes; far better and more efficient to have someone just do a direct copyedit. Your best option at this point is the Guild; please submit a request. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Request submitted. Adam9007 (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Request for Second opinion: A request for second opinion has been made by Adrian who has expressed concerns about the general writing style of this article. Adrian's concerns are proper and the narrative prose currently is not up to normal peer review standards. Even in the lede there are sentences which are non-grammatical such as: "a creature who serves the player and whose personality is shaped its interaction with the player." At the very least a GOCE copy edit review and rewrite is called for, with the possible need for larger re-organization of the article if requested by GOCE to bring the current article up to peer review quality. That might help move the article forward. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The GOCE has finished copy editing the article. How's it now? Adam9007 (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but I think another reviewer is needed, after such an overhaul. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * AdrianGamer, I see that you've called for a second opinion. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that a completely new reviewer is needed to continue the review—indeed, to start over from scratch. (You're ending your participation here, right?) If this is the case, it might be best to put this back into the reviewing pool, with seniority intact, to find a new reviewer that way. Sometimes waiting for a second opinion can take even longer than waiting for a new reviewer. Adam9007, do you have any thoughts about which you'd like to see at this point? BlueMoonset (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's necessary to get this up to GA... Adam9007 (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How am I suppose to do this? Should I directly close the review or delete this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianGamer (talk • contribs) 14:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * AdrianGamer, thanks for replying. I'll take care of what needs to be done. This review should remain intact, so the next reviewer can refer back; I'll adjust the GA nominee template on the article's talk page so the nomination is set up for a new reviewer and will create a new review page when said new reviewer comes along. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)