Talk:In Cold Blood (video game)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Juhachi (talk · contribs) 04:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Some sentences need rewriting, as indicated below.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * There's at least one piece of info that I feel needs a source in gameplay, as indicated below.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * The plot is overly detailed and needs to be trimmed down.
 * 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) 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) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments

 * Lead
 * Define who Charles Cecil is in relation to the game, such as "Game director Charles Cecil..."
 * For the size of the article, and the size of the lead, I do not believe three paragraphs are necessary, especially when the last one is a single line. Please try to rewrite it into 2 paragraphs, even if you just merge the last sentence into paragraph 2.
 * For the size of the article, and the size of the lead, I do not believe three paragraphs are necessary, especially when the last one is a single line. Please try to rewrite it into 2 paragraphs, even if you just merge the last sentence into paragraph 2.


 * Gameplay
 * "...in In Cold Blood" sounds strange. Maybe try "In Cold Blood's gameplay..." for better flow.
 * Revolution Software is linked already in the lead and infobox; I doubt it needs another link here.
 * "...is a departure from Revolution's previous titles" I believe needs a cite.
 * - No source states that, so it had to be removed. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "...is a departure from Revolution's previous titles" I believe needs a cite.
 * - No source states that, so it had to be removed. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Synopsis
 * " he has discovered a big machine and with a power cell found of Kiefer's corpse he activates it, a new tunnel is created, and Cord is able to leave the mine." is confusing and needs rewriting.
 * What exactly is HQ? Is that the same thing as the Security Headquarters mentioned earlier? If so, place (HQ) after Security Headquarters.
 * What is the "Land Train"?
 * Not needed - it's simply a train. --Khanassassin ☪ 12:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The VFF has planted a bomb on the train. A bomb is planted on the train..." is repetitive, as is "and Cord has to reset it. After Cord manages to reset the bomb,"
 * "On the Kappa level, he destroys Spectre, a gigantic robot, he proceeds to the Omega level, on which "specimens" are held in pods in a laboratory." should be two sentences.
 * "Cord has to use his Remora"; what is a Remora?
 * " reach the nephcopter"; what is that?
 * Should have been helicopter. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 15:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall, the plot is overly detailed, and it was generally confusing with so many play-by-play scenes. Not counting the background info, the plot is about 1,370 words with 6 beefy paragraphs. Try to trim it to about half this length, or even more if you can.
 * "Cord has to use his Remora"; what is a Remora?
 * " reach the nephcopter"; what is that?
 * Should have been helicopter. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 15:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall, the plot is overly detailed, and it was generally confusing with so many play-by-play scenes. Not counting the background info, the plot is about 1,370 words with 6 beefy paragraphs. Try to trim it to about half this length, or even more if you can.
 * Overall, the plot is overly detailed, and it was generally confusing with so many play-by-play scenes. Not counting the background info, the plot is about 1,370 words with 6 beefy paragraphs. Try to trim it to about half this length, or even more if you can.

*Overlinking of PlayStation, Song, and again with Revolution Software.
 * Development
 * For the last line, "While the PlayStation version is no longer available" should be rewritten to clarify what "no longer available" means. I think you mean it is no longer manufactured by its publisher(s), and if so should be rewritten to reflect this.
 * - It means it can not be purchased anymore.
 * This section should have some mention of the game's release date, consoles and regions release with appropriate sources. Include that info from the infobox here.
 * This section should have some mention of the game's release date, consoles and regions release with appropriate sources. Include that info from the infobox here.


 * Reception
 * This section is just a long string of bulky quotes. Try to rewrite the section and paraphrase the reviews by mentioning what was received well and what was received bad. This is more a suggestion than something necessary, but it would make the section easier to grasp from a reader's standpoint, and if you want to take the article further. Also, the table already lists what each of those reviewers gave in terms of score, so is it really necessary to mentioned them again in the prose?

--  十  八  04:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Referencing
 * The article is fairly sparse in references, with there being only 10, half of which are in the reception section. Still, most of what needs a reference has one. While the plot section doesn't necessarily require sources, direct quotes from the game would be helpful if you intend to take the article further.
 * Refs aren't needed at all - for example, Call of Duty 4, a FA, has none at all, as well as many other FAs and GAs - not only for video games, but for books, movies, episodes etc. --Khanassassin ☪ 13:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the issues are all resolved
 * OK, now I think I resolved all the issues, is it good now? :) --Khanassassin ☪ 11:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

More comments
*Change PC to Windows (with wikilinks where appropriate), including instances in the rest of the article.
 * Infobox


 * Lead
 * "a MI5 agent, who is sent on an assignment, but gets captured," --> "a MI5 agent who is captured while on assignment,
 * Link 3D to 3D computer graphics
 * "in the game world in order to" --> in the game world to
 * I believe you meant to put the above to issues to Gameplay, but whatever, they're resolved. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 13:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Background
 * "Volgia, a state" --> "Volgia, a fictional state"
 * Link USSR
 * Link "Soviet Union collapsed" to Dissolution of the Soviet Union
 * In the lead, you called the agency MI5, but here it's MI6. Is this a discrepancy? *
 * Sorry, it's actually MI6, not MI5. --Khanassassin ☪ 13:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Reception
 * "GameVortex praised the game ranked it as the "Top Pick," and praised its graphics, sound, story and puzzles, and praised and criticised elements of the gameplay, saying "The game's overall feel and playability is outstanding."" This needs to be rewritten, and split into 2 sentences.
 * "Game Revolution gave the game a rather negative review," This seems to contradict the very next word, 'praising'. How about just saying "Game Revolution praised its "solid story..."?
 * AND ! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 13:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)