Talk:Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. I'll have this to you within a couple of days. One suggestion I would make before hand, is that the lead appears slightly too long per WP:LEADLENGTH, but it's not "long-long" as in it breaks the flow of the prose, so I wouldn't worry too much. JAGUAR 17:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Initial comments
[edit]Lead
[edit]- WP:LEADLENGTH is fine now and complies per the GA criteria. Thanks for correcting this
- "and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo GameCube" - repetition of Nintendo, I think it's safe to lose the Nintendo before GameCube as a lot of VG articles refers to it as "GameCube"
- "GameCube video game console in 2005" - is "video game console" really needed here? It's just that I thought readers know what they're in for when they read about games! Feel free to ignore this, I realise it's minor....
- "A direct sequel for the Wii, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, was released in 2007 in North America and Japan, and 2008 in Europe" - I checked the article and it was released in Australia also in 2008, but this isn't mentioned here
Body
[edit]- "During battle, players have access to both the humanoid Beorc and the shape-shifting Laguz" - are the Beorc and Laguz different species and not characters? I initially listed a bunch of errors until I realised that they are both a species as a whole
- "As with previous Fire Emblemt games"- typo
- "At the same time, they introduced the Base element" - why is based capitalised?
- "the Japanese version's Maniac setting was removed, and new Easy and Hard settings were introduced" - wasn't Hard difficulty in the Japanese version?
- "It was released in 2007 in Japan and North America, and 2008 in Europe" - and Australia
References
[edit]- No dead links (for anybody else checking this, it did pick up one dead link, but it's been archived)
On hold
[edit]This is a nice article overall, very deserving of becoming GA. I'll leave this on hold until everything is clarified. 
JAGUAR 21:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think I've addressed all the above issues. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing them! This one is good to go.
JAGUAR 16:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing them! This one is good to go.
