Talk:Sword of Mana/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 18:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this. Expect my comments and such in a day or two. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Review

Here we go. Overall, it's a very good article. There are only a few minor points that need addressing or explaining.

• Sentence in the lead: "While incorporating gameplay elements from the original game and generally following the same plot, Sword of Mana has a distinct gameplay and a much more involved story." The "has a distinct gameplay and" part seems a little off grammar wise. I think it needs correcting, but if it doesn't, you can explain why.

• It's technically fine, but sounds wrong because I use gameplay as an adjective earlier in the sentence and then use it as a singular noun. Since "sounds wrong" is a valid complaint, changed. --PresN 21:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Like the previous games in the series" - Too many "the"s, unless it's a stylistic choice based on the gameplay sections of previous articles.

• No, the other articles don't have that first "the". Neither does this one, now. --PresN 21:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• "After the release of the previous game in the Mana series, 1999's Legend of Mana, several members of the development team..." - Legend of Mana isn't linked anywhere in the article.

• Last sentence of Gameplay, actually. --PresN 21:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Refs 6, 9 and 11 need author(s) adding if possible.

• All three of these are by "IGN Staff" or "GameSpot Staff", and so don't have an author listed. My understanding is that you don't list an author unless there's a specific byline'd author to list. --PresN 21:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

And that's it, unless I missed anything. Once these are dealt with or explained adequately, I think this article can pass with flying colors. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: Responded inline. --PresN 21:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for the prompt response. I'll rate this article as a Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)