(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
Thanks for the review! I've added the alt text, and hopefully improved a bit of prose. I also did some small reformatting to make the image placement more ideal. I also renamed Development and release to Leak and release, as it more accurately reflects the content of the section. Regarding concerns that prose requires an understanding of the game to comprehend and many of the transitions are weak, could you show prose that you found egregious in this regard? I'd noted myself that those who had never played Lego games may have a tough time understanding characters and such. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not the reviewer of this article, I just wanted to butt in and note that the portable version of this game is individually notable and should not be a part of this article, but rather located at Lego Indiana Jones 2: The Adventure Continues (handheld video game). The Nintendo DS version got reviews from IGN, Nintendo Power and Nintendo Gamer, as well as a GamesRadar+ one unlisted on Metacritic, and should be split off before this becomes a Good Article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is splitting the article off based on different releases with different content commonly done? I know that it's not the case in Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy, an FA, for its mobile release, which is seemingly even more distinct than Lego Indiana Jones 2's handheld release. Although, I don't really know the notability of that release over the main. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's individually notable and markedly different from the console release, yes. Also, Lego Star Wars II became a featured article in 2009. A lot of FAs from that time were way more lax on standards and it's likely the mobile version should be split off too, although with only an IGN and Pocket Gamer review, I am unsure if it actually passes GNG and may need to remain merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead section needs to be expanded. Stuff like "In addition to the level creator, there is also a character creator, although Lego Indiana Jones 2 is not the first Lego game to include such a feature" could also be reworded. I think Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes is a good example of what the article should look like. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the mentioned section, clarified/rewritten a couple of other sentences, and added a new sentence to the lead. By the way, I'd appreaciate to hear what you make of Zxcvbnm's inputs regarding the hanheld's notability. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the 2 weeks of no edits, I've returned with some rewording and a new section regarding character abilities, like is in the Lego Batman 2 article. Other than that, I don't know where there can be more parity. Looking through the information contained in that article, it seems that it's all either not applicable or poorly formatted in the Lego Batman article. Also, I'd like to ask about the status of the On Hold boxes, which do you now consider complete? Mebigrouxboy (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence could offer a broader overview on the game (e.g. what type of game is it, point of view), something like "Lego Indiana Jones 2: The Adventure Continues is an action adventure game themed around Indiana Jones. The game uses a third-person perspective" instead of the Lego minifigure sentence.
Alright, I've made nearly all of these changes and cleared up some of the density of 'the game' usage. However, I'm confused what you meant by The Lego theme is aready established. What is this in reference to? I have a similar issue with Maybe add in the platform stuff there and then talk about Metacritic and individual reviews?Mebigrouxboy (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I went ahead and split off the handheld parts to a new article, and added enough sourcing it can stand on its own, as I noted before. This shouldn't really affect the current article at all, it was pretty much entirely removing content that was in a different section anyway. But, if there is anything remaining in this article that is specific to the handheld version, it should be moved over. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
On hold
Pass