Talk:Mass Effect: Andromeda/GA1

GA Review

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: Manelolo (talk · contribs) 20:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review Andromeda during the week. Never played Andromeda, but loved the first three games. A WP:COPYVIO check indicated that the Combat section is 77 % duplicated at YouTube here [1]. Seems like a WP:FORK since the article contains separate refs for the section, but could it be kindly double-checked (and the YT link added to the fork list)? Otherwise seems in very good order, cheers! Manelolo (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Review done and issues noticed below, Merry Christmas! Manelolo (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough, educational, and friendly review. I had a chance to go through most of the items tonight. I will finish things up and give the article a few more sweeps later in the week.--Ktmartell (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nah, excellent job and well done! I'm passing it since it clearly meets the good article criteria already. I'll leave the rest of the comments open if you wanna focus on them later. Cheers! Manelolo (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Failing issues

• A WP:COPYVIO check indicated that the Combat section is 77 % duplicated at YouTube here [2]. Seems like a WP:FORK since the article contains separate refs for the section, but could it be kindly double-checked (and the YT link added to the fork list)?

I double-checked the YouTube video and this definitely appears to be a copy from Wikipedia. I would be more than happy to add the YT link to the fork list, but unfortunately am not sure exactly how to do so. Where can I find the fork list? My apologies if this is a simple question.--Ktmartell (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC) I think its been scrutinized and recorded enough to not be a copyvio, not an expert on these forking thingies myself either.

• For the first time in the series, BioWare decided to include open world elements and place an emphasis on exploration. sounded a bit off to an ME veteran (since ME1 had pretty open worlds already) and the cite does not seem to support the claim?
• Mass Effect: Andromeda required a team of over 200 developers and, according to Aaryn Flynn, was given a total budget of C$100 million sounded a bit off that the budget (usually pretty common knowledge?) is attributed to one person and the cite does not seem to support the attribution?

Reference issues

• 6: wrong name of author
• 52: lack of info on ref and no mention its from Twitter
• 38, 39: wrong publisher
• 79: no publisher
• 88: url does not lead to source of info
• publication date missing often from web sources (e.g. 22, 24), assess if publication dates need to be added throughout the whole reflist at some point in the future

I will try to do a full sweep of the Reference list and add more publication dates. I probably won't get to 100% by the 17th but I should be able to make significant progress. Thanks for pointing this out.--Ktmartell (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: do a general sweep of the reflist for consistency/ref info problems, but it looks ok either way

Unclear prose or copyedit-ish issues for consideration

• Following the game's release, BioWare ... Following its announcement in June repetition in lead
• and seamlessly choose a navigation point seems a bit weasel-ish, especially since coming from BioWare's website?
• various quests that need to be completed are they obligatory?
• which allow for certain upgrades felt this could have used some expansion/example
• which can be accessed on the fly a bit informal wording for WP?
• they help build the Nexus, a huge space station especially in this day and age of certain presidents, huge seems a bit weasel
• Scott or Sara Ryder (voiced by Tom Taylorson or Fryda Wolff, respectively) consider adding red wikilinks to unlinked actors throughout this section? Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Red_links
• Alec saves Ryder by giving away his helmet at first read it sounded like Alec gave his helmet to some random dude instead of directly to Ryder, consider rephrasing?
• Ryder is also given a spaceship, the Tempest, perhaps assigned or something more formal?
• is chasing after an object called Meridian isn't after unnecessary?
• which has the capacity to control all vaults and the verb can tells the same much simpler?
• the kett have been turning the angara into their own through a genetic modification process a bit unclear, are they being turned into kett or some other kett creation?
• was done in order to allow Edmonton to begin working the in order to allow type always sounds a bit clunky, consider rephrasing?
• In addition to the standard version of the game, players could 'also purchase a Deluxe Edition ... A Super Deluxe Edition was also made available ... For a short time, players could also order heavy repetition in single paragraph
• with players taking to the internet to post clips, images ... and taking to Twitter to verbally for me, taking to sounds a bit informal/more vague than simply "posted clips to internet" or smth
• such as Joe Juba of Game Informer, who concluded, "Mass Effect: Andromeda is fun should art titles be italicized even within quotations if the original quote does not do so (issue in the whole section)?
• would move 3 million units ... Mass Effect: Andromeda had moved at is simply sell/sold better than the more colloquial move/moved?
• in their Q4 FY17 notes ... in Q1 FY18 instead of Q4 FY17 maybe open up quarters and fiscal years once for the uninitiated reader?

I wasn't totally sure the best way of doing this. I decided to spell out one example and then leave the other ones compressed. Any advice would be appreciated here! Ha.--Ktmartell (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Looks good!

Summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Outstanding article, but some issues to be fixed not to let a few rotten apples ruin it.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Excluding minor unclear or copyedit-ish issues, an excellent piece of work.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   See the few issues.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Without a doubt.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold till end of 17 December 2017 (14 days, taking into account Christmas rush). Pass due to amendments.

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.