Talk:X-Men Legends/GA2

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

Reviewer: Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 04:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC) It looks like this article had a good review previously, and that most of the concerns were taken care of. I'm will start this review by double checking that the past concerns have been taken care of, then I'll take a second look to make sure that there are no concerns that were missed and no new issues have arisen (dead links, major changes, links redirecting to home pages, etc.). Hope to have something soon. Cheers--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 04:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Prior concerns

 * Images :
 * File:Xmenlegends newxmen.png fails NFCC. Depiction of costumes only isn't really a compelling rationale.
 * Image was deleted so this concern is taken care of.


 * Prose :
 * Elements from the lead (who Alison Crestmere is, who the X-Men are, et al) are somewhat explained in the lead but not in the body. Per policy, everything in the lead must be in the article body.
 * Information has been addressed in the plot section.


 * There's a lot of confusing verb tenses throughout. Past tense is simple and straightforward; no reason to deviate from that in historical sections unless necessary. You can see some of the problems that I removed in one section.
 * Article has received a full CE from GOCE since the first GA and has fixed this issue.


 * The Article needs an audit for accessibility to non-gamers. Terms like "drop in, drop out" are undefined; comparisons that would mean little to non-players leave the prose cloudy, such as "Co-operative play is similar to Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2"."
 * Drop in Drop out have been taken care of. However as a non-serious gamer I don't understand why Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2 is referenced. the reference simply states "The top-down, combat-heavy setup is reminiscent of games like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance" was this game critically acclaimed, or award winning for its Cooperative play?
 * I can remove it if necessary. --Teancum (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The way it's worded now it doesn't apply much context to non-gamers so from that angle I think it might be best to remove. If you explain the connection as to why they compared the two games like "Cooperative play is similar to the award winning Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2" (don't know if that's true) or something along those lines it would help readers unfamiliar with Baldur's Gate understand the comparison.--Mo Rock...Monstrous  (leech44) 16:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Removed


 * Why is "Man of Action" italicized? It's not a work. Actual works, like the X-Men films, The Wonder Years, and Ultimate X-Men, are not italicized.
 * Man of Action is no longer italicized, while the other have been.


 * " IGN stated "To capture the 'comic book feel,' "... - publications aren't people and don't have opinions, it's the critics who do.
 * Has been reworded.


 * You can cut down a lot of redundant words throughout the article ("As Alison trains, the X-Men are sent to explore an Alaskan research facility", et al.)
 * CE has taken care of this issues as well

Further review
I have reviewed the article and it looks good for the most part. I had a couple of comments:
 * The Metacritic references, 43, 44, and 46 go to a page that displays "404 – Page Not Found"
 * ✅ - Replaced with updated URLs


 * Reference 48 the original is no-longer available and the archive is giving an error message.
 * ✅ - Updated with a vendor reference since verifiability is all that's needed here.


 * ref 49 goes to a link page. Why not use the different pages with the information as separate references?
 * Furthermore, I don't see any mention of Beenox on the PC link. Is there a better link for this?
 * ✅ - Replaced


 * Same as above with ref 50.
 * ✅ - Replaced


 * reference 54 is also a dead link, taking you to a page that states "We couldn't find the page you were looking for!"
 * ✅ - Replaced


 * I have placed this on hold until the links can be replaced and other concerns addressed.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great - I'll take care of these issues in the next 3-4 days. Thanks much for the review. --Teancum (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed the links. I still need to address any above issues. --Teancum (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

✅ - I've addressed all the issues. Thanks for reviewing - if you see anything else let me know. --Teancum (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good I'm going I'm going to go ahead and pass this.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)