Talk:Descent 3/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good game and at a first glance a neat article. I'll take up the review. I mainly focus on copyediting issues - I'll have a read through now and will leave some initial comments within a few hours. Thanks! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 14:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to wait. Thanks! --Niwi3 (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I want to say that the prose of this article is excellent - there is actually very little to be done here but for the sake of a review I have spotted some minor copy editing issues that are in the article.

Lead

 * The lead complies per WP:LEAD and meet the GA criteria.

Gameplay

 * The prose flows very nicely here and all of the references are in check - I see no issues (or copyediting issues) here!

Plot

 * "the Material Defender is rescued by an organization known as the Red Acropolis Research Team" - just like the Post Terran Mining Corporation (PTMC), it would be good to use the initials (RART) if possible to indicate the Red Acropolis Research team in future sentences.
 * Done --Niwi3 (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "a large anti-terrorist and police group" - are they both the same thing? Anti-terrorist doesn't seem to make any sense by itself...
 * I agree, anti-terrorist seems a bit redundant and unnecessary, so I removed it. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Development and release

 * " one of the biggest complaints of Descent II was the fact that it was considered too "tunnely"" - just to clarify a little, was it the gamers who complained about Descent II's environments or was it actual criticism by game critics?
 * By both, I think, though it is not specified in the source. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Expansion pack

 * The beginning of this section was written in present tense and the rest is written in past tense. Since the whole article (and the rest of this section is written in past tense as both the game and expansion back was released in 1999, some of this section needs to be corrected:
 * "Descent 3 features an official expansion pack developed by Outrage" and "It also includes the game's level editor." should both be corrected!
 * I have to disagree here. The game still features an expansion pack and the expansion still includes the game's level editor. Just because the game was released in 1999 it does not necessarily mean that these sentences should be in past tense. By that logic, the article should start like this: "Descent 3 was a first-person shooter...", which is wrong; Descent 3 is still a first-person shooter :) --Niwi3 (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, I completely agree with you! I must have been tired when I wrote that. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 21:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

On hold
This is an excellent article - nearly everything complies per the GA criteria and the prose is focused on the subject and flows nicely. The only minor problems I have found with this article were a few copyediting issues that just needs clarifying and an issue with the Expansion Pack section. Other than that the article is nearly flawless; all references are in check and are in the right place. I will put this article on hold for seven days and once those minor issues are addressed I will happy to give this article its deserved GA status! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 17:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time reviewing the article, really appreciated! I think I have addressed the issues you brought up. If the article still needs more work, please feel free to let me know. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted
Thank you for addressing those points so swiftly and well done on building this article! The whole article now definitely complies per the GA criteria and apart from those minor copyediting issues the article would have been flawless. This sounds like an interesting trilogy of games, well done for building this up to GA standard! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 21:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)