Talk:God of War: Chains of Olympus/GA1

GA Review

Passed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 19:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hi. I will be reviewing this. As i have no intentions to include it on my GAN drive count, i will do this review slowly and calmly. Cheers. —Hahc 21 19:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead might not have refereces, since what it's stated there is expanded on the article body.

Okay, removed refs.

On "September 13, 2011" delink 2011 in video gaming and write the link as See also.

Okay, just so I understood that, you were saying to put 2011 in video gaming (as well as 2008) in the "See also" section?

Yes. What happens is that when people read "September 13, 2011" and see a link in "2011" they expect the link to the year, not the "year in video gaming". So, it is better of you write the corresponding "year in vidoe gaming" on the "See also" section to avoid this kind of confusion. Just a personal recommendation :) —Hahc 21 01:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've gone ahead and made the changes you've suggested so far. JDC808 (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above with March 4, 2008.

Above comments.

"Chains of Olympus, along with God of War: Ghost of Sparta, was remastered" >> "were remastered"

Okay.

Delink protagonist (op.)

Okay. JDC808 (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

"both normal and quick-time, platforming and puzzle game elements." I think a "with" is missing before "platforming"

Fixed.

The last sentence of the third paragraph is missing a reference and i consider it to be kind of controversial.

I believe you meant the fourth paragraph. Found a reliable source.

Plot

"he is sent to the city of Attica to help defend the city" avoit the second usage of "city" of another pronoun like "it", so it doesn't get redundant.

Fixed.

"Kratos fights his way" As his name was used half a sentence before, change it for "He" as we are undoubtedly talking bout him. Do the same with the following sentence, which also starts with "Kratos".

Done.

As a general comment, i see that most sentences on the first paragraph starts with "Kratos did x"; this style of prose breaks the flow each time a sentence is read. I consider to slightly rewrite the text to give it a more flowing appearance, so it is more kind when read.

I've went through and tried to avoid using Kratos at the start of the sentences. How is it now?

"Eventually locating the Temple of Persephone..." >> "After eventually locating the Temple of Persephone..."

Fixed.

Characters

Mainly the same comment as the one i made before. The prose flow needs work.

How is it now?

Audio

I think that the title should be changed to be more specific. Also, as this talks about the voice actors, i think it would fit better under Development.

I had used the example from Batman: Arkham Asylum (which point 10 of section 3.3 at WP:VG/GL cited as a good example) which is why I used "Audio" as the title and placed the section where it's at. I've changed the title to "Voice over", unless there's a better title that can be used. JDC808 (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read it and think that "Voice" is better, but you can leave it as you wish. Regards. —Hahc 21 18:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's work on this before continuing with the following sections. Regards. —Hahc 21 03:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the changes have been beneficial, and in most case have only required minor tweaking. Note the language changes. There is, however, no need to modify the Characters section. Minor foes do not warrant a mention, and certainly don't feature in many other game articles. The Voice Over section is also superfluous as the aforementioned section covers this. Bluerim (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please review what has been stated in the GA review (this is a review by someone who has never contributed to this article and is reviewing to see if we can make this a GA article). Also, character list are inappropriate for video games and should be done as prose (see Batman: Arkham Asylum and WP:VG/GL point 10 of section 3.3). No references in lead sections as they are explained more and sourced later in the article. I have also been editing the other articles in accordance with this GA review. Please comply with the GA review and any policies that I've referenced (repeatedly). JDC808 (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another spot to point out in regards to characters is here. I had a Third Opinion sought in regards to the matter of the character sections. Again, please make edits that are in compliance with this GA review. If you have a disagreement, bring it up on here BEFORE editing so that it does not interfere with the GA review and cause confusion with the reviewer. JDC808 (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what research you (Bluerim) have done (probably not GA, FA articles, or even guidelines for that matter), but a blank section will easily fail a GA review. I will point it out one last time before seeking further action to this consistent matter. See section 3.3, point 10 of WP:VG/GL which cites Batman: Arkham Asylum (a GA article) as a good example to use for the Characters and Voice-over (titled Audio there) sections. Batman does a prose section for the characters AND the next paragraph talks about other characters that were referred to or briefly seen throughout the game. JDC808 (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been brought into line with the articles in the Final Fantasy series, many of which have been Featured and have excellent formatting. This is the way to go and with this model the GOW articles will start to pass muster. Also note that one other very experienced games editor has removed an unnecessary section. I'd advise against reverting on him. Bluerim (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I have advised to not interfere with the GA review, which you blatantly did. I asked repeatedly and you have ignored it. I have also asked for you to discuss any disagreements or changes before editing so it does not interfere with the review or cause confusion with the reviewer. Like I stated in my edit summary, I am forced to take further action. JDC808 (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)r[reply]

Secondary comment - given that we're using Batman: Arkham Asylum as a reference (which I worked heavily on) the "Voice-over" section should probably be renamed "Audio". I did this on the Arkham Asylum article so that the section could later add information on the composer and general recording and composition of the title, but never got around to it. That's why it never got moved to the development section in that article (and why I instinctively moved it in this one without thinking). While not a GA, Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions represents a little better the focus I was going for. Having the section in development allows for overall expansion on the audio, and takes the focus away from being a "cast list" in prose form. I only mention this because you reference the article and I'm planning on making that change very soon. --Teancum (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this statement "Composer Gerard Marino has stated that this was the first cue written for the game basing it on concept art and screenshots of the game." makes an even better case for a dedicated audio section (or just a paragraph merge into the development section. --Teancum (talk)

Y Merger complete. For some reason the discussion was split between the GAN review and the regular talk page. I have merged it here. Please be sure to hit "Edit" only on Talk:God of War: Chains of Olympus#GA Review (which will forward to this page) to ensure the discussion is kept in one place for archival purposes. --Teancum (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually originally named it "Audio", but the reviewer suggested a rename and moving to development, which I brought up Batman as my reasoning for putting the section where it was at. Since there's a soundtrack section, should composition related information (like the statement you pointed out) be put there instead? JDC808 (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would merge the Voice-over and Soundtrack section as a new Audio section and place it under development. --Teancum (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can agree, mainly for the fact that it's soundtrack was never commercially released like the other games were. Speaking of the other games, since their soundtracks were commercially released and have some reviews, should they have their own soundtrack section, or be merged with Audio as well? JDC808 (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have been more clear. "Voice cast" and "soundtrack" should be one section, "Audio", with no sub-sections. "Audio" should then be a sub-section of "Development". Per WP:LAYOUT there isn't enough content there to justify its current layout. --Teancum (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, which may also satisfy the reviewers concerns with the section as well. JDC808 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Development

"(featured "PSP" in the Omega symbol with the words "Coming Soon" in the God of War font)" the pas tense "featured" feels incorrect. Maybe better if you write "which featured" or "featuring" since you didn't stablished a tense in the phrase before the parenthesis to help it. Also, you can just delete the parentheses and write "featuring the wornd "PSP" inside the omega symbol along with the words 'coming soon' in the GoW font."

Took away parenthesis and reworded it to "featuring "PSP" in...". P.S. Was that a typo on wornd?

"and included a fluid and cloth simulator" >> "and including"

Fixed.

Note: I think that, as the soundtrack section is kind of shot to be level 2, why don't you move it as a level 3 subsection of Development?

I see you've noticed that Bluerim has made a new section based on Teancum's suggestions.

Release

"The collection is a remastered port of both games to the PS3 hardware" >> "for the PS3 hardware"

Fixed.

The last sentence is unsourced.

Now sourced.

Reception

I think that it will be better of you move all sales-related information to a subsection named "Sales", just as it is with Awards.

Bluerim took care of this.

"In September 2010, God of War: Chains of Olympus was listed number one on GamePro's "The 10 Best PSP Games" list.[54]" Better under awards?

Moved to awards.

Okey. Nothing else to note by now. I found no other issues on the article. I will be checking the references after the above issues are fixed. —Hahc 21 18:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, will get on it as soon as I can, if no one else begins. JDC808 (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied several sections where the language was awkward, and implemented the suggestion above to move Sales to a separate section. I have also retained the Plot section with its sub-sections as it spells out everything nicely (works just fine for the Final Fantasy articles, most of which have been Featured articles). We just need to avoid any unnecessary minor details that smack of trivia (e.g. no need in Characters to mention what object Kratos obtains from who - here we talk in general terms about the characters, again as per FF). By the by, please note the administrators have had no issue with my editing the article. It we could move forward without any further blind reverts it would be appreciated. This article can then be used as a model for the others. Many thanks. Bluerim (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and to be honest, I like the reformatting you have done based on the FF games. My biggest issue was that you did not discuss it before you made the changes. Grant it, you left a post saying what you did, but you didn't allow a discussion to commence. Though true that the administrators did not have an issue with the situation I had brought up, they did, however, state they wish you would be more diplomatic on the talk page (keep this in mind). With that aside, good work.

Extra comments on content

I changed 'voice over' to 'voice cast', which seems much better

Alright.

Also, the new 'Audio' section seems pretty odd. I will be thinking about how it could be worked, since it's kind of weird as how it is now.

Okay. JDC808 (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per Teancum's suggestion, Audio is now a sub-section of Development with no sub-sections of its own. JDC808 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—Hahc 21 04:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I was asked to engage a bit more in the review on my talk page to settle a dispute on what content should be added (based on recent additions and reverts). I'll just say that it's good Wikipedia:Etiquette to hold off on major changes to the article during a GAN review. The two of you can (and probably should) discuss things after the GAN nomination is complete (whether passed or failed), but please hold off on major changes as edit wars will cause the article to immediately fail per GAN criteria #5 (see below). Also just be aware of WP:3RR, which basically states that after three reverts of edits no more disputed changes should take place without consensus on the talk page. That being said I don't have an opinion on whether the disputed edits should be added after the GAN review is finished. --Teancum (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was one of my concerns as it was a bit of a major edit, and the reviewer had already reviewed the section (Plot) as it previously was and stated what he thought should be fixed. It is also why I had tried to ask Bluerim to discuss the matter before making the changes. JDC808 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait. I was checking the references. As all seems to be up to standard for me, i'll pass the article. —Hahc 21 03:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:
· · ·

—Hahc 21 03:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great. Thank you. It's been a pleasure working with you through this review. Maybe we'll meet again in another review. JDC808 (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Always willing to help. I hope we eventually meet again on future reviews :). Regards. —Hahc 21 03:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.