Talk:Batman: Arkham City/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JDC808 (talk · contribs) 22:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm JDC808 and I will be reviewing this article. I would like to make note that this is my first time reviewing an article for GA, but I have made several articles GA and one FA. I will begin the review within the next 24 hours. --JDC808 ♫ 22:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments

Lead Everything, for the most part, is pretty good, but there are some things. 1st paragraph "Batman: Arkham City is a 2011 action-adventure video game..." Is it necessary to say it's a 2011 game when this paragraph later states it was released in 2011? "released by Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, and Xbox 360." How about "..for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 video game consoles and Microsoft Windows." (It was released first for the consoles, so it makes more since to order it that way. This will also help with the 4th point below). "Based on the DC Comics superhero Batman, it is a sequel to the 2009 video game Batman: Arkham Asylum." How about "it is the sequel." "It was released worldwide for consoles,.." Doing the second point will make this make more sense. I mean, I know what it's saying, but for a casual reader with little to no knowledge on video games, they may not understand what "consoles" means. 2nd Paragraph. "The game is a third-person perspective action-adventure game with a primary focus on Batman's combat abilities,..." Remove "action-adventure game," that's already been stated in the articles opening sentence. Maybe try rewording it to "The game is presented from the third-person perspective with a primary focus on Batman's combat abilities,.." 3rd paragraph Remove citations. Unless it's controversial, citations are not needed in the lead as the info is later cited in the article. "It was the recipient of several awards including awards for Game of the Year,.." Remove the bolded portion as it's repetition. "The game is being adapted for other consoles post release including a Wii U version scheduled for release on November 18, 2012, and an OS X version for late 2012." OS X isn't a console per se, so I'd suggest rewording. Something like "The game is being adapted for the Wii U video game console and is scheduled for release on November 18, 2012, with an OS X version scheduled for late 2012." --JDC808 ♫ 07:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Working. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC) 1st paragraph "Batman: Arkham City is a 2011 action-adventure video game..." Is it necessary to say it's a 2011 game when this paragraph later states it was released in 2011? I can see what you are saying but I based it off of Portal (video game) which is a FA, though maybe it is oudated. Okay, no problem. What I can suggest to make the first 2011 not seem repetitive is that when the Wii U and OS X versions release, put those in the first paragraph. So it could be like "...Microsoft Windows version following on November 22, 2011. The game was later released for the Wii U on November 18, 2012, and for OS X on (month/day), 2012." Those should also be added to the listing of the platforms after their release "...released by Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment for the PlayStation 3, Wii U, and Xbox 360 video game consoles, and Microsoft Windows and OS X.". In doing that, you would need to change "It was released worldwide for consoles," to "It was released worldwide for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360," These are just suggestions of course that you can choose to implement as this review will be done before the Wii U and OS X releases. --JDC808 ♫ 19:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC) "released by Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, and Xbox 360." How about "..for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 video game consoles and Microsoft Windows." (It was released first for the consoles, so it makes more since to order it that way. This will also help with the 4th point below). Done "Based on the DC Comics superhero Batman, it is a sequel to the 2009 video game Batman: Arkham Asylum." How about "it is the sequel." Done 2nd Paragraph. "The game is a third-person perspective action-adventure game with a primary focus on Batman's combat abilities,..." Remove "action-adventure game," that's already been stated in the articles opening sentence. Maybe try rewording it to "The game is presented from the third-person perspective with a primary focus on Batman's combat abilities,.." Done 3rd paragraph Remove citations. Unless it's controversial, citations are not needed in the lead as the info is later cited in the article. Done "It was the recipient of several awards including awards for Game of the Year,.." Remove the bolded portion as it's repetition. Done "The game is being adapted for other consoles post release including a Wii U version scheduled for release on November 18, 2012, and an OS X version for late 2012." OS X isn't a console per se, so I'd suggest rewording. Something like "The game is being adapted for the Wii U video game console and is scheduled for release on November 18, 2012, with an OS X version scheduled for late 2012." DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Gameplay 1st paragraph. Unsourced. The easiest source for video game article's gameplay sections is the game's instruction manual, which you would source as: <ref>{{cite book|year=2011|editor=[[Rocksteady Studios]]|title=''Batman: Arkham City''|type=[[Instruction manual]]|page=|publisher=[[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment}}</ref> 2nd paragraph. Good. 3rd paragraph. "After a select number of challenges are so bested," I understand what it's saying, it just seems odd to read. How about "After the completion of a select number of challenges," 4th paragraph Good. 5th pagagraph. Catwoman is only playable via the DLC pack correct? You should try to reword it to mention that she's only playable via the download of the DLC pack, at least on consoles, as I read later on in the article that the PC version already includes her. Maybe something like "Catwoman is another playable character accessed via the Catwoman DLC pack (included in initial install on PC). The character features her own heist-focused storyline..." 6th paragraph. "Rather than rely on maps, the player can mark Riddler puzzles as they are found, if the player does not have the necessary equipment to complete them." How about "Rather than rely on maps, the player can mark Riddler puzzles as they are found and return to them later, if they do not initially have the necessary equipment to complete the puzzle." 7th paragraph. Good. --JDC808 ♫ 00:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Done all but the first, working on finding a source, I didn't write that section and I'm a bit Po'd that there is no source for it, but i'll try to find a source, shouldn't be too hard.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Okay, if you have the game's instruction manual on hand, you can check to see if it covers it, and if so, you can use that as the source. Also, nice rewording for Catwoman. --JDC808 ♫ 03:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC) It's 3:45 am at the moment so I will do that first thing tomorrow. Incredibly irritating I thought finding such info online would be simple but nope, single items spread across multiple sites. Thanks on the Catwoman thing, I'm quickly learning multi-platform games with staggered release dates make for awful article building. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Okay and you're welcome. It is a bit annoying as I've experienced a somewhat similar situation on a couple of articles. --JDC808 ♫ 04:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Synopsis Characters: 1st paragraph. Bane is missing voice actor. Last sentence, all DLC characters (albeit Catwoman on PC version). Make note of that. Maybe "Playable characters introduced via DLC for Arkham City include..." Did Nightwing have a voice actor? I'm unsure as I didn't get to play any of the DLC. 2nd paragraph I made minor comma insertions. Who was Killer Croc's voice actor? Can you find sources for the last two sentences? Setting: "The events of Arkham City are set a single year after Batman: Arkham Asylum." Seems simpler to just say "set one year after" Plot 1st paragraph. "Newly disguised, he first saves Catwoman..." How about "Now disguised..." Maybe I'm not reading it right, but newly sounds...kinda weird. The rest of section is good. Development This was all very minor stuff, so I took care of it as most was just tense issues ("was" to "were"). Marketing 1st paragraph. "A limited series six-issue monthly comic series," -> "A six-issue, limited monthly comic series," "It is written" -> "It was written" "A special Xbox 360 console was eventually revealed." If it were me, I would change this to "On (month/day/year), a special Xbox 360 console was revealed." 2nd paragraph. Since the pre-order info is covered in the release section, I would just say remove the pre-order information from this section. If each of those retailers offered something different as pre-order bonuses, I would add that to the pre-order section. The other products such as NOS can remain and be merged into the first paragraph. 3rd paragraph It starts with "Toys "R" Us in Times Square New York City, released 500 copies..." then the next sentence starts with "Only 500 copies of the game were available at the event..." The beginning of the second sentence is pretty much repeating the first sentence, so I'd suggest removing "Only 500 copies of the game were available at the event" and have the sentence start as "The first 100 customers...." "The latter remaining 400 copies..." Remove latter. Release 1st paragraph "Batman: Arkham City was first officially released" Remove "first officially" "followed on October 19 by Australia" -> "in Australia", and then the next one should be "in Europe." "except for the United Kingdom where post the scheduled release date, it was announced that the release would be pushed back to November 2, 2012." -> "except the United Kingdom, where its scheduled release was pushed back to November 2, 2012." 2nd paragraph "A spin-off game titled Batman: Arkham City Lockdown was developed by NetherRealm Studios for iOS. The game was released on December 7, 2011." Merge sentences -> "A spin-off game titled Batman: Arkham City Lockdown was developed by NetherRealm Studios for iOS and was released on December 7, 2011." 3rd paragraph "A Wii U version is scheduled to be released in 2012." I would say go ahead and put the date in place of 2012. "Named Batman: Arkham City Armored Edition" Changed "Named" to "Titled". Pre-order bonuses: 1st paragraph. "A PS3-exclusive Sinestro Corps outfit was revealed in August 2011 that can initially only be unlocked" -> "could initially be unlocked" 2nd paragraph. "The pre-order content was considered an "early access opportunity" for purchasers," Change "purchasers" to "customers" Retail Editions: 1st paragraph. "In the United Kingdom, the Robin Edition was announced for sale exclusively through retailers Game and Gamestation" -> "was announced, available exclusively" Last paragraph I would either move this paragraph to before the "Game of the Year" paragraph (sine this is 2011 and GotY is 2012), or move this paragraph into Marketing. Downloadable content: 3rd paragraph Merge into the 2nd paragraph and italicize Arkham city. Now thinking about it, is this really DLC for the game? If not, I would suggest moving this into Marketing. --JDC808 ♫ 23:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Done all of this except looking for a source for Vicki Vale (Honestly I can't understand how it is this hard to find a single game site saying such a simple piece of information) and the gameplay part, the instruction manual has next to 0 content in it and nothing to do with the game content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Okay, and I understand. I had an article where I needed the credits for the game and I couldn't find them posted (or at least fully posted) anywhere, so I ended up having to cite the game itself (there is a format to cite games). I won't fail the article because of that because I've played the game and know that stuff is there, but when/if you take this to FA, you'll need those sourced. That also sucks about the instruction manual. Since it didn't cover that stuff, I doubt it would have the credits (one of the articles I work on actually had the credits in the instruction manual). --JDC808 ♫ 01:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC) No credits were in the book either, dunno how that's ever going to be solvable short of the WiiU release sparking a press release. Dunno why they chose to list only the actors in hte credits without the people they played but it was a stupid thing to do. Anyway, I think I have sourced the gameplay section and Vicki Vale's appearance but not her voice actress. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Reception Critical reception: 2nd paragraph "Game Informer's Andrew Reiner awarded a perfect 10 score, and labeled it..." -> "Game Informer's Andrew Reiner awarded the game a perfect 10, labeling it ..." "McElroy was also critical of the Riddler challenges as frustrating" -> McElroy was also critical of the Riddler challenges, stating that they're "frustrating"... Also, the citation says Mike Schramm is the author but the in the text and the review website, it says Griffin McElroy is the author. The date is also wrong, should be October 14. Sales: Good. Accolades: 1st paragraph "Batman: Arkham City was nominated for multiple awards at the 2011 Spike Video Game Awards including nominations for: Best Original Score,.." Remove bold. Throughout the section, the nominations are listed first, then the awards it actually won. I would rearrange these so that what was won is first, and then what it was also nominated for. Technical issues: Good Music "The game's release was accompanied by two albums of music: Batman: Arkham City – Original Video Game Score which featured songs of original score by Nick Arundel and Ron Fish," -> "The game's release was accompanied by two albums of music: Batman: Arkham City – Original Video Game Score, composed by Nick Arundel and Ron Fish," Sequel Good --JDC808 ♫ 02:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC) DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC) References Though it's not necessarily required of a GA review, I'm going to point out issues of the ref section so that it'll easily pass FA (at least this section). Ref #5 and #8 are both from Eurogamer but #5 just has "Eurogamer" where #8 has "Eurogamer (Eurogamer Network)". Later on, there's some that are "Eurogamer. Eurogamer Network". These all need to be consistent. I'm not sure if you (or whoever originally sourced it) purposely put the parenthesis around Eurogamer Network. Is that from the ref format? When I cite sources, it doesn't put the parenthesis around the publisher. Some sources are missing info. For example, ref #1 is missing its author, date, publisher, and work (if it's not the same as publisher). <ref>{{cite web|url= |title= |date= |author= (I always use |last= |first= )|publisher= |work= |accessdate= }}</ref> All web sources are going to have url, title, publisher, and accessdate. Work may sometimes be the same as the publisher (and if that's the case, you don't have to put publisher and work, just publisher). But take IGN, for example, IGN is the work and News Corporation is the publisher (I always wikilink publisher and work). If the website you're sourcing doesn't have a Wikipedia page that tells you who owns it, just look at the bottom of the website for the copyright info, which will be the publisher. If it's not there, see if the website has an "About" section and it should tell you the owner, if it's not themselves. Of course when you do the web archive, it's gonna look a little different in the references. Good job on archiving the ones you have archived. I actually need to get on that with the articles I'm working on. All dates and accessdates appear to be consistent with each other, so good. Make sure all the source formats are consistent and have all the information you can provide (as shown above in ref format) and when you're done with the ones that need fixed, I'll pass the article. --JDC808 ♫ 21:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Working, FYI the parentheses is what happens if you use Cite News instead of Cite Web. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Oh okay. I didn't realize that as I almost always use Cite Web for online sources. There's was only one I didn't, and it was Cite Press Release (and already cited that way when I came to the article). --JDC808 ♫ 22:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Almost all done, just 4-5 refs I want to replace as they are from the official forum by site staff who were quoted in game news, but I'd like to replace the forum with a site, the forums don't seem to archive and so one day they will be useless. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC) I know you're not finished, but here's what I see without info. Ref #1 has BAFTA but 139 spells it out. If you choose to use BAFTA, wikilink both, otherwise spell it out on both. Ref #'s 2, 25, 38, 45, 70, 72, 74, 81, 91, 97, 116, 134, 136, 143, 157, and 178 are missing Joystiq's publisher, which is AOL. Ref #27, IGN missing publisher. Ref #39 missing publisher and work. Ref #41 and 107 publisher is EGM Media, LLC. Ref #46 missing info, unless that's one you're replacing. Ref #48 and 49 Game Informer missing publisher (GameStop). Ref #146 GameTrailers missing publisher (Viacom). Ref #154 missing publisher (UBM plc). Ref #164 missing publisher. Ref #177 missing publisher and work. There were some that I wasn't sure about their publisher, but they may have been one's you're replacing. --JDC808 ♫ 06:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC) K, I think thats done and I replaced what I wanted to replace. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Outside comment

As the Wii U version of the game has yet to be released and it will have additional features, will receive reviews and coverage, I may be leaning to say that this nomination would not meet the criterion 3a and 3b. But that is just an outside comment. — ṞṈ™ 09:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If you've seen the trailer for the WiiU version of the game, you will see that existing features with tacked on multi-screen, is not going to tax the article. And review wise, it's already been released on multiple formats, the WiiU does not require substantial specialist coverage. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh well thanks for clarifying this for me. Although it was just a comment :P — ṞṈ™ 19:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't believe the little extra info is gonna cause the article to fail. It's not really new info, albeit the couple of small tack ons (which the article may already cover - I haven't gotten through the article all the way yet). Though I willl say a couple or so reviews should be added for the Wii U version as well as their Metacritic and GameRankings scores. --JDC808 ♫ 19:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, at GA comprehensiveness needs to be broad but not necessarily exhaustive, but at FA, the Wii U stuff would be necessary. As is, the coverage is nice and wide but there is an identifiable gap to be plugged if this wants a bronze star. GRAPPLE X 19:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll include the stuff as it comes but I don't see it requiring more than a subsection at the bottom of the gameplay section and no more than a paragraph in the critcal reception unless for some reason there is a drastically different reaction, it's little more than a DLC download beyond appearing on another console. So it shouldn't hamper a move to GA. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Verdict

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Great work. --JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Woop Woop. Thanks for the time and attention you've put in to this JDC808. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. You've put great time into making this a good article. --JDC808 ♫ 23:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)