Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (video game)/GA1

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

I should be back to review this article later tonight. Cheers, CP 22:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, first GA review in ages, but here we go:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Some comments:


 * 1) There's quite a few two-sentence paragraphs here; try to expand or combine them so that they're at least three sentences long, as one or two sentence paragraphs really tend to chop up the flow and make it difficult to read.
 * ✅ There are still a couple left, but their subject matter is completely different from those in other paragraphs, and the fact that they're both at the end of their sections means they're not so disruptive. Una LagunaTalk 08:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) There are a lot of links that that go to redirects... usually I fix these myself, but I found so many in the infobox and intro alone that I think these need to be fixed by the nominator. You should go through the entire article and make sure everything links, either by name or by pipe, to an article. A good example: I didn't know what the DICE awards were, so I clicked on the link and I got a disambiguation page that didn't help me at all.
 * Done the infobox, will do the rest in a few hours. Una LagunaTalk 08:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC) ✅ And you were right: there were loads. Una LagunaTalk 12:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) One other link problem - in the infobox you have "Hack 'n Slash" leading to "Beat 'em up"... I'm not sure which was the intention (probably the former given the article), but the text should match the link for whichever you choose.
 * ✅ The infobox is probably the only part of the article I haven't really worked on, and now that you've pointed it out I realise it really is a mess. Una LagunaTalk 08:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I feel like the first two paragraphs of the gameplay section rely very heavily on quotes that would be better paraphrased... it would improve flow and readability to paraphrase somewhat.
 * ✅ Una LagunaTalk 08:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) In the plot section, I think the Todd Arnold quote would be more appropriate paraphrased than directly quoted. The Gamespot one is fine.
 * ✅ Una LagunaTalk 08:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) All direct quotations must be cited directly at the end of the quotation mark, even if there's a citation at the end of the sentence UNLESS you're using a non-quote just to connect two parts of the quote (e.g. "Frame rate issues do affect each version of the game, to varying degrees, and none of the character models for the main characters look all that remarkable, either," but conceded that "All other aspects of The Return of the King's graphics are outstanding... The game's audio is even more effective than the graphics at conveying the intensity of the action." is fine). Sorry, but dems da rules. I noticed this specifically in the Development section, although I also caught at least one in Reception so you should make certain that this is the case all over.
 * ✅ Assuming that, for example, "RantRantRant," said X.[4] is fine and you don't need the same [4] after the quote. Una LagunaTalk 08:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) The penultimate paragraph of Development, aside from being too short, is awkward because the introductory sentence and the quotation are not connected to each other - this should be fixed when dealing with the paragraph length issue.
 * ✅ Reworded to be more consistent with the interview sourced, and moved to the end of the second paragraph. Una LagunaTalk 08:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Last paragraph in Development: "The Return of the King went gold on all platforms on October 10, 2003." - per WP:OBVIOUS, you should explain what "going gold" means.
 * ✅ Linked to "went gold" to Software release life cycle. Una LagunaTalk 08:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Under Reception: As an adaptation, the game was praised as "best movie to game conversion that has come out in a long time" and "[setting] a new standard for video game adaptations of movies." - Who said that and why is their opinion important? Yes, I know I can click on the footnotes, but a reader should be able to garner at least this basic understanding without having to click them.
 * ✅Makes sense, the reader wants to know that this isn't some random Joe in the street. Una LagunaTalk 08:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Reception section, paragraph 4: There's a special circle of Hell for people who begin sentences with "However". Please, for the good of your soul, fix it.
 * Sounds familiar, but I've not been able to find the policy on this. Simply removing it makes the paragraph less clear, so I replaced it with "in contrast". I'm open to correction, though. Una LagunaTalk 08:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, I'm putting the article on hold for one week to allow for these changes to be made. I'm always open to discussion on any of them items, so if you think I'm wrong on something (I can't say that I'm not a bit rusty - speaking of bad sentences) leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Cheers, CP 05:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, everything looks much better now... I fixed a few redirects and removed the DAB link (it was just a circular redirect), and a few small issues: I still think that the two-paragraph sentences have potential for expansion/merging, but that's just my personal opinion so I won't hold back a GA pass for it... something to think about for FA though. Same with the quotations... I think the quotation method implies that even in the circumstance you described the reference should come right after the quote (sentence phrasing aside), but again, too small and too subjective to be picky about pre-FA. I think the "however" thing is more a English-language rule rather than a Wikipedia policy, but it is listed as a potential issue at the GA cheatsheet. In any case, "in contrast" makes me happy.

Therefore, I am passing this article as a Good Article. Congratulations and thank you for all your hard work! Cheers, CP 20:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your work reviewing the article :D Una LagunaTalk 21:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)