Talk:Mortal Kombat II/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 16:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Might as well take this one up for review as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Make the series first, I just decided to re-write this one all over again. --Niemti (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well. I did the series one and I was just moving to this one. How much time do you need? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing it since yesterday, I'm not sure but I guess maybe today or tommorow. --Niemti (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

But you might take a quick look and tell what I should concentrate on, because I've got a whole bunch of old scans right there. --Niemti (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

OK (Home versions of Mortal Kombat II is now a separate article). --Niemti (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's review:

Prose issues. "However, all characters in the game still share generic attributes (speed, power, jump height and airtime) and all normal moves are also the same between each character." - Consider rewriting this sentence, and most readers unfamiliar with the subject will not understand 'air time'.

"As with its predecessor, matches are divided into rounds, and the first player to win two rounds by fully depleting their opponent's life bar is the winner; at this point the losing character will become dazed and the winner is given the opportunity of using a finishing move." - This should be the first sentence of the paragraph. The test your might should go down further, it breaks the flow of the prose and is a bit awkward.

"The arcade version also contains a hidden game of Pong.[1]" This seems out of place. More of an easteregg and other secrets, it should not be part of the game overview.

Again, "According to the series' canon, Liu Kang won the tournament, defeating Shao Kahn and his bodyguard Kintaro.[4]" This should be dealt with afterwards. Each character gets their own ending, but the purposes of the series canon, that ending for the storyline. Maybe expand it to its own character?

The players and cast section should be noted more clearly, otherwise it may appear at first that the real names of the characters are being reflected instead of their actors. Also, are they 'really' actors or just voice actors? It is never really addressed in the article.

Please consider fixing the characters and the cast section. It is just a jumble of motives and characters with some purpose, but it is lacking in description and detail and it comes off a bit shoddy as a result. The constant references to the canon and other parts seem fit for another area, but half of it comes off as trivia. "Jax was originally going to be named Stryker, a name that would later be used for another character in the next sequel.", "It is later revealed that she is a clone of Kitana with Tarkatan traits." and " Later revealed to be the younger brother of the original Sub-Zero, seeking to complete the original Sub-Zero's failed mission of assassinating Shang Tsung." Remember this is fictional and should not use in-universe perspective. The constant bouncing, canon references and other tidbits come off across as neither introducing the character, but the what the character is and what the character's future role in canon is. Deal with that on the character main page, I would really prefer prose that describes the characters and why they are in the tournament, that's it. No need to go to the endings either.

The rest of it is pretty much fine, I do notice the 2002 statement about Mortal Kombat 2 being the best in the series takes prominence, but the claim should be put into context here. According to the release of the games this could cover up to Deadly Alliance, but even that is not certain. Though it is not even mentioned on the page to which you point the reference to. That should be fixed.

Images are okay. No broken links or self bouncing links. The article is neutral with a slight lean on the fan side.

Going to put this on hold, since it is a bunch of fixes. The prose is the thing which gets you here, and the rest seems okay, but it could use a lot of tinkering still. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Niemti (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It is good to see you continuing to improve the article, but if you do not mind, I will wait a little bit more and re-review all the changes and adjustments made for clarity of the process. I will do a little nitpicky of a run, just to make certain that the article of high quality. I will probably do some fixes myself if they are small. Keep on improving the article, each improvement gets it closer to FA criteria. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's seriously complete now. --Niemti (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Pass. It looks good, you've done a LOT of work on it and it looks much better now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)