Talk:Donkey Kong 64/GA2

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 10:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll look over this shortly. JAG UAR   10:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * " "As ... Super Mario 64 breathed life into the 3D platforming genre,"" - unlink Super Mario 64 here as it's already been linked. Also, isn't the comma meant to be after the quote?
 * "their sights to the Sega Dreamcast and Sony PlayStation 2" - no need for 'Sony'. I would say 'Sega' seems redundant here too, but I think it's sort of a personal preference for me
 * Agreed, they are redundant, but I think this is the kind of redundancy that is helpful to a general audience (who may not know what those systems are, but may not need to look them up if understood that they're from Sega/Sony.


 * "Reviewers criticized the game's opening DK Rap.[22]" - why only one citation here? Do all of the reviewers criticising the DK Rap need to be there as it's a summary sentence? I'm still getting to grips with writing reception sections in this style myself!
 * This citation is the holy grail: a source that makes a summative declaration ("Most, though, criticised it for being a rubbish song."), so no need to stack sources to support the claim. I think the hardest part of losing the X-said-Y Reception format is deciding when a review's statement can stand without needing to attribute the thought to X magazine as a qualifier. czar  16:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "The developer, Electronic Gaming Monthly (EGM) charged" - this should possibly be rephrased as it makes it sound like EGM is the developer
 * "and came from the Banjo-Tooie team when the Banjo project ended" - does this mean to say that the development of Banjo-Tooie ended when DK64 was being developed?
 * Yeah, some timeline issues here... (BT was completed after DK64 but the source said that BT dev staff worked on DK64)—rephrased czar  16:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Since all of the issues have been addressed in the previous review, and the fact that it already meets the GA criteria, I may as well pass this now. The above points are only minor nitpicks and doesn't affect the outcome of the review in any way. This is looking very FA-worthy as it stands. JAG UAR   10:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, J—appreciate the review and good suggestions, as always! czar  16:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)