Talk:GoldenEye 007 (1997 video game)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk • contribs • count) 17:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article today and tomorrow. Please be patient. Quick question: do the article's main contributors agree that this should be up for GA review? I note that there was disagreement about this recently. AstroCog (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but those issues have already been adressed as far as I know. The article seems basically done in my eyes and I agree it should be up for a GAR. In any case, I'm going to ask Nick R and see if he has any more objections, just to make sure everything is good to go. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I compared versions from the last GA review to now and there has been significant change, much of it for the better. I think it's a pretty good looking article. One thing that does concern me is that some language occasionally seems too informal (a systematic problem among video game articles). It's not too bad here, and I can give specific examples in the review, but you and the other editors might want to reread it with an eye toward making sure all the language is formal. AstroCog (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'm concerned about is that the article currently emphasises how influential the game was. IMO influence is a very difficult thing to measure, and other than the points about the sniper rifle and stealth elements, the cited sources are pretty vague and don't really say exactly which aspects of it were influential. I think that if the article is going to make big claims like "one of the most influential ever", it would really need a couple of very specific examples of how GoldenEye's innovations fed back into the design of PC FPSs, but the cited sources don't support this.

For example, the prominently-cited GamaSutra page makes the vague claims "Today's FPS games are still based on styles that came from GoldenEye" and "started the influx of console-based shooters we see nowadays".

However, something more specific is mentioned several times on that page:

"proved that it was possible to create a fun FPS experience on a console"
"the first big console FPS that truly got it right"
"the first viable and well done console FPS"
"The command system took great advantage of the N64 controller, and with something very different from a mouse and a keyboard, suited the genre's requirements".

So I think that emphasis tone of the lead and Reception/Impact section should shift to how it was the first notable, well-received console-exclusive FPS, developed with a console control scheme in mind, and with an extremely popular multiplayer mode. These are much easier claims to support, because pretty much every retrospective article about the game says something along those lines, but not many of them give specific examples of how it was influential. --Nick R^Talk 13:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are good points and good ideas that I think should be incorporated into the article. AstroCog (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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):
In the plot section, I am confused about the part near the end saying "An original mission shows..." I don't know what that means. Does it mean that there was an original plot point that was not added to the movie or video game, or that this part of the game's plot is original and not from the film? In any case, it should be clarified or removed.

It means that this part of the game is original and not from the film. I've clarified it. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a very basic copy-edit of the article for grammar and spelling. AstroCog (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Per discussion above, statements about the game being "widely considered one of the most influential" games of all time could be OR without a consensus of reliable sources.

Something should be done with reliable sources to support the juxtaposition of the four "spiritual successors" in the final image. Fix the fair-use rationales to say the mosaic images are altered from the originals.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Pretty good here.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I'm concerned that the vast majority of sources used in the article are from websites or magazines that only write about video games. While it's good to have these sources, I think there should be some sources that are neutral to video games in general. If sources like these have written about the game, then there should be a good effort put into finding them and using them here.

* This is an issue for promotions beyond GA status. I suggest using doing library research for articles with databases.AstroCog (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Seems stable.
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):
The image of the game box needs appropriate alt-text. Also, I'm concerned that the images that show screenshot comparisons don't state in their fair-use rationales that the images were originally presented separately. The final image, with four screenshots, borders on WP:OR because the text in that section doesn't talk about how the screens looked similar for all those games...just that their designs were related.

I was thinking about removing the final image, the one with the four screenshots, as I can't find anything to support it. Besides, I think it can be excessive fair use. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to remove it, you've got my blessing! AstroCog (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: Article is improved since GA review started. Good job, editors. AstroCog (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pass/Fail:

I've improved the impact section with these points. If it still needs more work, please let me know. I also think we should remove the "one of the most influential games of all time" line from the lead and summarize the changes. As for finding sources that are neutral to video games in general, they will be very hard to find. Frankly, I don't even know how to start. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]