Talk:Half-Life 2: Lost Coast/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There's a spelling error in ref 15. 'Marking' should be 'marketing'. I'm generally not fond of long quotes in citations--I'd prefer to see a separate 'notes' section with the quotes, and those referenced as normal. Gary, I think I gave you the code for nested refs? I won't fail on that basis, I think it's probably just a personal preference.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

*The end version of Valve's HDR technology adds a significant amount of lighting effects to the engine, all aimed at making the game appear more realistic.

• The cliffside up to the monastery had a more gameplay oriented purpose, and was meant to emulate a similar cliffside combat scene in Half-Life.
• In addition, Lost Coast acted as a testbed for Valve's commentary system. When it is enabled, additional items appear in the game that can be interacted with to play an audio commentary. Each audio piece ranges from ten seconds to a minute of commentary. Players hear the developers talk about what the player is seeing, what is happening, why they made certain decisions, what kinds of challenges they faced, and so on.

• Citations needed

I need to go for a bit, to be continued. //roux   19:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed above concerns due to explanations below. //roux   11:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe they use the references that comes first after each sentence. So, the reference might appear a few sentences later, but they still reference these, too. Gary King (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Aye, that's true. I added the citation at the end of the bit where I finish talking about it, rather than at the end of each sentence (otherwise the thing just gets clogged up with inline citations). The citation for the cliff bit is, for example, at the end of the second sentence, and covers both sentences: "The cliffside up to the monastery had a more gameplay oriented purpose, and was meant to emulate a similar cliffside combat scene in Half-Life. The intention of the cliffside is to force the player to be observant to threats from above and below, breaking from normal horizontal combat". The same is true of the others you point out, the appropriate citation is given within a few sentences at a logical break in the information. -- Sabre (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the references. Gary King (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)