Talk:Star Wars Episode I: Battle for Naboo/GA1

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. It's in fare shape but I've found issues. Check out Talk:I Married Marge/GA1 to see how I'll set this up. Let's get started. The Flash ^{talk} 17:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Battle for Naboo was published by LucasArts and THQ and released for the Nintendo 64 and Windows. It was released for the Nintendo 64 on December 13, 2000, and a Windows version was released three months later on March 12, 2001." -> Hm...that's a bit redundant and somewhat awkward. You mention it was released for the N64 and Windows, then pretty much say it again but with the dates. Try something like this: "Battle for Naboo was published by LucasArts and THQ and released for the Nintendo 64, where it was released on December 13, 2000, and Windows, where it was released three months later on March 12, 2001."
"[...]critics praised the game as "fun"[...]" -> "critics praised the game and called it "fun.""

Other than the first sentence, the entire first paragraph is unreferenced. If there's no outside reference, the reference to the game itself is sufficient.
"Seven bonus power-ups are hidden in different levels throughout the game. These bonuses improve a craft's weapons or durability and are applied to each eligible craft for the remainder of the game." -> unreferenced; sufficient to do the same thing as above
The entire first paragraph for "Unlockable content" is unreferenced. Citing the title of the unlockable content and such parameters could work if there's no website/manual source.
For ref 5, you don't need to wikilink IGN as it's already done in ref 3. Same goes for refs 28, 29, 33, and 39.

Added refs to game. Give me a second to find a possible IGN walk through to use as a source for the unlockable content. As for the wikilinks in the sources, I like to wikilink all the refs so if a reader goes to a specific ref, they will always have the wikilink handy in that ref.

You need to add the "cite video game" template after the quote, all the quotes actually. Not sure if it's a policy, but Kingdom Hearts II (an FA) does it. Sorry if it's unneeded.
"Further story details are presented through the game's instruction manual, pre-mission briefings, characters' conversations during the game and in-game cut scenes." -> don't think the quote covers that, or the previous opening crawl thing. A reference to the game or anything really that covers it should be added.

Ref 30, using brackets like that screws it up a bit - maybe change them to parenthesis.

"[...]exciting aerial combat, sturdy controls, and... absorbing story line[...]" -> makes it sound like he paused. In stead try "[...]"
"He also called the title "one of the best Episode I[...]" -> sounds a bit redundant. Can you clean it up a bit?
"[...]positive reviews, and received[...]" -> "reviews and received"
"However, both reviewers also believed that the game's Episode I setting is less engaging than Rogue Squadron's original trilogy setting. Mirabella states that "any fan of Rogue Squadron should enjoy Battle for Naboo just as much if they can get past the Episode I barrier."[3] Davis echoed this criticism, writing that the game's setting "does not carry the same impact as the story of the original [trilogy]."[7]" -> Uh...you have it say both did so, then only mention one and follow with the other person. Can you put the two together?
Ref 38 doesn't need to link to Metacritic as ref 37 already does.
You should mention IGN gave it it's "Game of the Month" award.

Cleaned up all the prose per your suggestions. Again, I like to wikilink all refs, however. I think this address all your issues. If you have any more concerns, let me know! And thanks for the birthday wishes haha! I didn't even notice it myself. --Torsodog^Talk 20:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Both fairuse images check out in both their rationales and resolution. No issues here.

Sorry for the long wait. This article looks fine now - passed. Good job. The Flash ^{talk} 17:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply