Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: James086 (talk · contribs) 17:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC) These are things I think need to be addressed:[reply]

In the Gameplay section there are 2 sentences repeated, also the last sentence could probably be integrated into the sentence before it. "The game's multiplayer mode uses Halo: Reach's engine,[11] and features seven maps. Six of the maps are remakes of Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2 maps. Seven of the available maps have been updated and re-released using Halo: Reach's engine. Six of these maps are competitive multiplayer maps that are remakes from Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2. Each map has two variants, classic and enhanced. Anniversary also ships with a Firefight map, where players fight against waves of enemies with the assistance of friendly non-player characters or human players. The setting of the Firefight map is taken from a Combat Evolved campaign level."

I think there should be some text in the Plot section unless there is consensus somewhere that says otherwise. Something along the lines of: "Anniversary's plot is word-for-word identical to the original game's."

The last sentence of the Development section could introduce confusion with 343 Industries and 343 Guilty Spark, perhaps it should say "Since 343 Industries developed..." for clarity.

In the first sentence of the Marketing section there is redundancy "later followed up with", could it be reduced to just "followed with"?

In Marketing the sentence doesn't flow well: "and Halolivingmonument.com website to celebrate"

Should also be an external link to that site either in-line or in the external links

In Reception this doesn't flow well: "which it brought compare to classic version"

This doesn't flow well either "The Guardian gave the positive comment by saying"

Images are correctly tagged, low-res etc., the article is well referenced, covers everything it should and neutral. Nice work. James086 ^Talk 17:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If I may, the lead does not properly mention reception. --JDC808 ♫ 22:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I think it's ready to pass once there's a bit of expansion to the reception in the lead section. James086 ^Talk 11:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few lines to sum up the section as it stands now. Apologies for the wait. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Pass - Listed it as a Good article. James086 ^Talk 17:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]