Talk:Banjo-Tooie/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 15:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still new in doing article review so I hope I don't miss anything or write anything useless. Also forgive me if I have made some mistakes.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and y:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Xbox Live Arcade should be wiki-linked in the developer field instead of in the platform field in the infobox

Several new features were cut from the game due to time constraints and limitations of the Nintendo 64 hardware. - I don't think this sentence is necessary for the lead

In order to summairse the article I had to mention at least a little on the development of the game, and to sum it up I used the "cut features" part in the lead. I think I'll keep this in but if you want I could re-word it to something else from development? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The aggregate score from GameRankings should be limited to 2 significant figures

and was among a chain of successful video games released by Rare for the Nintendo 64. - I personally don't think that this statement is necessary.

Similarly, Jes Bickham of Games Radar described Banjo-Tooie as a game that requires - It should be GamesRadar, no space

Liu of GameRevolution said that the graphics were "beautiful" - It should be Game Revolution. A space is needed.

Reviews from IGN, Allgame and Famitsu should also be removed from the review template. They aren't used in the section

I explained below, I think this should be OK (but I'll find some more sources if I FAC this) ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Xbox Live Arcade version of Banjo-Tooie received mixed to favourable reviews from video game critics - mixed to favourable is vague.

Everything archived, no dead links, all sources reliable
Though Source 5 is a primary source, could be better if it is replaced by a secondary source.

The source for File:Banjo-Tooie Coverart.png isn't reliable.
Rare Ltd. in the owner field of the non-free cover template should also be changed to simply Rare for consistency.
The Gameplay screenshot also need some clean up.

Do you mean the photo or the caption? I was thinking of replacing it with a slightly higher resulotion ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean that Non-free use rationale template of the gameplay image needs clean up because few fields are left n.a. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it is a well-written article with very few problems. The issues I pointed out are really very minor, so I am not going to put it on hold. Article Banjo-Tooie promoted to . Congratulations. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Even though a FAC isn't on my mind I could think about it in the future as this article is clean and compact. I will get to addressing all of the above now and should be have it all finished shortly. The entries from IGN, Allgame and Famitsu in the review box should be fine as it doesn't have to be mentioned in the prose as long as they have scores - but I hope to find some offline sources soon. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 11:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]