Talk:Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain/GA1

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

Reviewer: PresN (talk · contribs) 18:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Claiming this review; I'll start writing it out in a second. -- Pres N  18:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Images
2 Fair-use with good rationales, 1 free- consider moving that one to commons so other wikipedias can use it.

Stability
Stable.

Lead

 * " the player follows Kain" - follows? or controls?
 * The lead overall feels a bit sparse compared to the length of the rest of the article- I'd add a sentence or two covering the gameplay (or at least the top-down style), a sentence more on the development, and perhaps another sentence on the reception.

Gameplay

 * I got nothing, really

Plot

 * "a new guardian is culled to take their place" - culled?
 * "reluctantly raised as a vampire" - I thought Kain was the one reluctant, but this implies that Mortanius was reluctant, and later on you say that Kain wasn't reluctant at all, he just didn't know what he was agreeing to
 * "which he sought is his own death" - I don't think you need to link suicide here.

Development

 * You don't need to relink action-adventure game, or link Canada in the first place
 * The whole section feels a bit over-linked, actually, though I'll leave that up to you.

Reception

 * "Comparative to the original release" - just compared
 * Do you really need eight citations for that statement?
 * ""actual talent" comparative to other actors" - again, just compared
 * "particularly exorbitant and dissatisfactory" - there's nothing wrong with these in and of themselves, but usage of lots of long adjectives starts to make the text feel overwrought, since you go on to use "decried", "reasonably unobtrusive", and "alleviated, but did not fully amend". Any one of them is fine, but together they start to make it feel like you went hunting for synonyms to avoid repeating words. Just watch it if you take this to FAC.

Sequel

 * No problems, though I admit to being confused that there's a game named Blood Omen 2, but you don't mention it directly, even if it is the third sequel.

Other

 * There are a lot of redirecting links. Like, a ton. About half of all links in the gameplay and plot section are redirecting- and it doesn't always look intentional. It isn't really required to fix, just struck me as odd.
 * Generally, in the infobox you shouldn't have more than 3 people in any field (and that is pushing it as it is) - were all five producers equal on the project?
 * Your dates in the references are inconsistent- sometimes you do month day, year, and sometimes you do yyyy-mm-dd (like ref 5). Pick one.
 * Ref 6- the date was 11/01/01
 * I'm going to let http://www.dark-chronicle.co.uk go as a source, since it's just a mirror, but I don't think FAC will.
 * Link IGN in the references (such as 38-40)
 * Ref 56 and 58- fix the all-caps

Overall, this article is in great shape! Not too much to fix, so I'm going to place the article on hold while you sort it out. -- Pres N  19:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Response
Wow, it's been quite a while since I last took a good look at this article. Thank you very much for the kind review! These suggestions are definitely more than reasonable; I'll implement them ASAP, and while I do that, let me see if I can give any feedback on a few notes too:


 * Plot: "culled" – I can change this if you like, though it's not a typo, it's deliberate terminology from the game ("born" works too but may not be quite as accurate)


 * Sequel: Blood Omen 2 – I agree, I'm conscious of the issue there; it's just that Blood Omen 2 is kind of an "in name only" sequel to this. Soul Reaver is the real follow-up. BO2 has very little relevance to that, or the quarrel between Silicon Knights and Crystal – it is a sort of isolated Soul Reaver spinoff which came years later, very much in spite of its title. It can certainly be worked in with a tangential explanation, just I've wondered if it's worth it, as that section is rather complicated already.


 * Other: producers – yes indeed, five listed as equals under "producers" in the original PSX release ("Jeffrey M. Zwelling, ESQ" notwithstanding). It had a long development period and I believe there was lots of staff turnover in Crystal Dynamics at the time; plus one of them represented Silicon Knights. I could swap it to just "Jonathan Miller (executive producer)", but had noticed that using execs is explicitly discouraged in infobox video game.


 * Other: Dark Chronicle – I'll try to replace these with Wayback citations instead wherever possible.

Everything should be amended before the weekend. Again, thanks a lot for your review and your time, I appreciate it! --LoK Wiki (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright, your explanations sound fine on all those, so no worries. -- Pres N  20:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry for the unreasonable delay. Some unexpected problems have cropped up to drain my free time. I will make every effort to implement these changes tomorrow, if that's acceptable. --LoK Wiki (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, no worries. -- Pres N  03:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while without any edits to the page; any update on this? -- Pres N  22:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been another week without response, so I'm going to go ahead and fail this nomination. Feel free to nominate it again in the future. -- Pres N  21:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, I am sorry about that. I've been up to my neck in work lately, couldn't even find time to log in. More than understandable to fail it; hopefully I'll have a chance to try again properly at some point next year. Once again, apologies. --LoK Wiki (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)