Talk:Mass Effect 2: Lair of the Shadow Broker/GA1

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough
On a first pass, this looks like very impressive work: well written, sourced, and proofread. I have only a few minor concerns:


 * I've done some minor proofreading and a few style tweaks. Please doublecheck my work to make sure I haven't inadvertently added new errors, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with.
 * "It was either that or loose everything:" -- should this be "lose"?
 * "It is widely considered to be the greatest downloadable content pack of the game." -- "widely" may be overstating this, since it has four reviews as a source. It would also be helpful to say "reviewers considered it..." since the sources don't cover fan reaction. What about rewriting those two sentences of the lead to simply read "Reviewers generally praised the narrative between the main characters and considered it the greatest downloadable content pack of the game."? I don't know that the "valuable addition" part is really needed. (Also, I wonder if "best" would be better than "greatest", but that's really just a quibble.)
 * "The Shadow Broker's ship exterior was seen by most critics as the most impressive battle environment of the pack" -- "most critics" again may be a mild overstatement. Could you just say "Steimer and VanOrd" here?

Let me know your thoughts; I'll start the checklist in a moment. Thanks again for your creation of this quality article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review, much appreciated. I've addressed the issues you mentioned and I've doublechecked your great copy-edits; the article looks fine in my eyes. I have no hurry to raise this article to GA status, so take your time with your review and let me know if there's anything else I can do. Again, thank you for your time and interest. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great--thanks for the quick response! This is a clear pass as far as I'm concerned, but let's give it 72 hours just in case anybody else has any concerns. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)