Talk:Tomb Raider (2013 video game)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cabe6403 (talk · contribs) 14:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I will take this. Expect some initial comments within a day or so Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 14:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion
Please add any related discussion here.

I'm on my initial read through and I notice there is a number of citations in the lead. Per WP:CITELEAD this is permitted but not encouraged as to avoid redundant citations. For example, the sales figures are cited in the lead and later in the article so citing in the lead is unnecessary. Could you please remove any redundant citations in the lead. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 15:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have done this. The citations for sales figures and general reception have been removed, but I have left in the citations that seemed to be part of the lead or key to it: ie, the hype the game got prior to release, the fact that this was a total reboot of the series. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks ✅ Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel there should be a bit more in the way of blue links, especially for first time use of terms that some may be unfamiliar with. For example, "The game also incorporates RPG elements: as the player progresses through the..." RPG should be piped to Role-playing video game or "Portuguese traders, United States Marines and a Japanese" where US marines could be linked. Again, these aren't strictly necessary but I feel it'd better the article Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Added the links, can't see anything else, but if you want to point anything out, feel free. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This article looks very good and I can find pretty much no issues with it. All I have remaining to do is check the sourcing. If that is to the same standard as the rest of the article then I anticipate an easy pass. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)