Talk:Destiny (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, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox and Lead

 * Infobox mode field should be "multiplayer" only, not "online multiplayer"
 * Bungie released Crimson: Steam Pirates in 2011, so it is not really its first franchise since Halo
 * The lead is too short. Given the length of the article, the lead should be much much longer and that it should summarize everything in the article.
 * mixed to positive reviews - This statement is vague.

Body

 * Events may happen in-game that are not necessarily controlled or planned by the developer, which will help to create a dynamic developing experience for Bungie and a dynamic playing experience for gamers. - unsourced
 * Statements like help to create a dynamic developing experience for Bungie and a dynamic playing experience for gamers. and that allow the player to finely tune their individual characters to provide a different play style. should be written in a more neutral way. These statement, in my opinion, sound like advert.
 * For this one, I am not quite sure, but detailed description of their super might violate WP:VGSCOPE#6 - You may not need to remove all of them, but I recommend you to make it shorter
 * Each class starts in one sub-class (Striker, Voidwalker and Gunslinger respectively) but players are free to change to the other subclass at level 5. Once the second subclass is unlocked, a player can change back and forth between the subclasses at will. - Also unsourced
 * played either solo or as part of a "Fireteam" - Article never mentioned what a Fireteam is.
 * I don't recommend you to use the bracket for the gameplay modes
 * It seems that the gameplay section focuses too much on characters' classes, modes and the MMO component. Don't forget that the game is also a first-person shooter as well.
 * In the "Plot and setting" section. I only see "Setting", but not "Plot"
 * I am honestly expecting more from the development section. How the gameplay, MMO element, story are inspired seem to be missing from the article.
 * There is some unsourced statements in the development section
 * game's development - You don't need to italicize development
 * Bungie announced an alpha version of the game for PS4, which was open from June 12 to 16 - June 12, 2014 and June 16, 2014. The year the alpha was released is important
 * Activision revealed that an exclusive item would be available for those who bought Destiny - What is the exclusive item?
 * On September 5, 2014, Sony Computer Entertainment announced and released a trailer about an exclusive mission for the PlayStation 3 and PlayStation 4 versions. The Xbox 360 and Xbox One versions will receive the mission sometime in late 2015. - When PlayStation owners received the mission then? Secondly, a trailer will never be announced.
 * Given Activision's huge marketing expense on the game, the article is lacking a "release and marketing" section.
 * The House of Wolves expansion was released on May 19, 2015; it features new content taking place within the Reef, adding new missions, the new modes Prison of Elders and Trials of Osiris, along with new weapons and weapon upgrades. - Reef is never mentioned in the article. And that only the name of the new game modes were given, and what they actually are readers will never know unless there is a brief description about them.
 * I remember that the musician of the game sued Bungie, and that the article don't seem to have included that.
 * I also remember that Bungie updated the voice-acting of the game as well
 * Given that the there is a lot of expectation and anticipation for the game prior to the release, the article is missing a pre-release reception subsection.
 * For the post-release reception section. It is too short. Given that the critical reception of Destiny is fairly mixed, this part of the article can be significantly expanded.
 * Limit GameRanking's score to 2 significant figures.
 * Template:video game reviews is inconsistent. You either list the score for the PS4 version first, then the score for the XONE version. Don't swap the order.
 * You have a lot of unused reviews in the template. The template serves the purpose of supporting text, not to mirror Metacritic. You either remove it, or actually cite content from them in the reception section.

References and Image

 * Inconsistent citations. You need to italicize Game Informer, Forbes, Eurogamer, but not IGN. You need to wikilink Polygon, VG247, Canada.com, Vox Media, VideoGamer.com, Hardcore Gamer and Gamer Network.
 * Source 22, you should not cite the url of Engadget
 * SlashGear don't seem to be reliable
 * If you cite Kotaku or Eurogamer in the work field, you don't need to cite them again in the publisher field
 * There is a lot of primary sources used. Replace them.
 * Giant Bomb is also owned by CBS Interactive, and GamesRadar and Computer and Video Games are owned by Future plc, you may want to fill the name of the owners of these websites in the publisher field as well
 * Capitalization is needed for sources from Computer and Video Games
 * Few dead links
 * Looking at the edit history, it is mostly reverts between IPs and editors. Stability may also be an issue. The page is semi-protected but considering that it will end on 1st June, 2015, who know what will happen?
 * A screenshot will be a great addition to the article, but it is not compulsory.

Overall
Overall it is a fine article. However, the gameplay section needs to be significantly expanded, and the lead and the reception section needs some overhaul. Here is the review 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 y:
 * 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:

It seems clearly that the article is not ready. There is some out-of-date information, and that I expect much more from a major release like Destiny. And since that the page is semi-protected, and that the nominator is an IP (Don't pretend to be another editor), it means that you will not be able to fix the issues I mentioned above immediately. So therefore, I am going to fail this article. AdrianGamer (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)