Talk:Halo 4/GA2

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed this back in August. I should complete this by tomorrow ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 21:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead

 * "The game has been supported post-launch with bug fixes, updates, and downloadable content (DLC)" - is this really worth mentioning? Surely every game now has patches and updates given to them
 * Removed this sentence. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "A sequel, Halo 5: Guardians, is set to be released for the Xbox One in 2015" - it's due to come out on the 27th October this year, so that might be worth mentioning
 * Added this along with a reference. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead summarises the article well (improving since last time), so this meets the GA criteria

Body

 * "Four years after the events of Halo 3, Forward Unto Dawn" - should be UNSC Forward Unto Dawn in its first mention only, since it's a ship (yeah I'm a Halo nerd). I think the same can apply to the Infinity
 * Added UNSC before the name of both ships on first mention. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph in the Development section sounds wrong. Bungie became independent in 2007 but still managed to produce two games between 2008-2010 (ODST and Reach), but this paragraph makes it sound like they stopped making Halo straight after they split with Microsoft
 * I've reworded this. Hopefully it is better now.  Do say if it needs to be clearer. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Be careful, the third (larger) paragraph in the Development is lacking citations. It has a pile of citations at the very end of the paragraph instead of having them evenly spread
 * Fixed this. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Reception towards Spartan Ops was less favourable than multiplayer and campaign" - favorable, assuming this has to stay consistant with AmEng
 * Fixed this. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

On hold
It looks like this has improved since I reviewed in last in August, so well done on that. If those issues above can be clarified then it looks like this shouldn't have a problem with passing the GAN. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days, good luck ☠  Jag  uar  ☠ 22:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing them all, I'm confident this meets the GA criteria now. Looks like we're good to go ☠  Jag  uar  ☠ 08:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)