Talk:The Hobbit (2003 video game)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 21:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll do my best to get to this article within the next week. If I'm not back by then, please ping. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Some early immediate comments:

• Notes section isn't needed when there are no notes.
  • Already done, it seems--Alexandra^IDV 02:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Since the story follows the book so closely, is there any need for such an extensive summary? Can't the narrative be summed up in short form?
  • Trimmed it down. The article on the book is linked here, so we don't need to retell everything to that extent.--Alexandra^IDV 02:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Far too many quotes in the Reception section, and scores shouldn't be in the prose since they're already in the infobox.
  • Paraphrased and cut out the scores.--Alexandra^IDV 02:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Several links there, I think, should be archived ASAP (IGN reviews, interviews where possible). GameRankings is currently dead/redirecting to GameFAQS, so these links absolutely need archiving and marking as dead. Also, while it does show the manual, ReplacementDocs isn't a site I trust not to have a nasty surprise in waiting

--ProtoDrake (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Review

Sorry this has taken so long. I'll do my best with all the points.

Lead/Infobox

• Are those your only sources for the release dates by region for the different versions?
• You already give the game's year of release, so all the additional dates aren't really necessary.
• You mention multiple developers in the opening paragraph, yet only one in the infobox. You could use a footnote to address this.
  • On a similar note, since there are so many versions, perhaps you should clarify that all versions were published by Sierra, rather than just relying on the multiple "it"s currently used.
• Since it's apparently such a differnt version, perhaps include additional summary of how the GBA version was received compared with the others.

Gameplay

• You've called the game an "action-adventure" in both the Lead and the Infobox, but it isn't used anywhere in the gameplay section.
• You should use alt text for all that extra detail, since at the moment it's bloating the caption.
• Sting redirects.
• Speaking about the GBA version, are there enough differences to merit its own paragraph within the section?

Plot

• I know it's an adaptation with some differences, but is there a reason to run through the whole thing since it's still a fairly faithful adaptation of the novel? I'm not saying there shouldn't be a plot synopsis, but maybe get it down to a couple of paragraphs.
  • Also, are there any reliable sources for the voice actors, and are they a notable part of production?

Development

• This section is an issue in an of itself, since the way it's written is very difficult to read through. Actual development information is jumbled together with announcements, no start date for the project, and information that might easily integrate into the text pushed awkwardly into quote boxes.
  • The bit about the licencing tangle could be better phrased, as at the moment it's written in a confusing way.
  • The entire second paragraph uses the same source three times.
    • "In the early stages of development, there were plans for players to control Gandalf during the Battle of the Five Armies, but this idea was ultimately abandoned." - While the teased Gandalf appearence is mentioned here, is there another source you can use to back up its ultimate non-inclusion?
    • "Also included in early builds for the game were interactive minigames depicting the eagle escape from the Misty Mountains and the barrel escape from Mirkwood. Both of these aspects of the game were dropped due to time constraints, and the minigames were instead replaced with cutscenes.[16]" - This entire section isn't supported by the reference at all, having read through its text.

Music

• Main issue here is there's too many quotes and not enough paraphrasing, since I can't see anything there that wouldn't be adequately communicated through paraphrasing rather than quoting entire sections from the source.
• Since there isn't an album release cited here specifically, reception of the music should be incorporated into the general reception. Same for the GANG award.

Reception

• There's no need to put scores in the prose.
• Since there appears to be individual commentary on these themes, it would be better to group paragraphs by what critics thought of each part (story, gameplay, graphics, ect.) rather than a few huge paragraphs with some critic reviews that don't cover many of the cited review scores. Having more than four websites speaking about the game when there are more than four websites with commentary on it would be useful.
• On a minor note, is there any sales data for this game?

General

• IGN linked twice.
• I would create a "release" section or subsection with related information about the publicity surrounding the title, including the dates and regions for different releases.
• Website/magazine titles should be italicised.

I'll put this article On Hold for the prescribed period so the issues can be addressed or discussed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies, @Thylacinus cynocephalus:, should've pinged you. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't think I can continue this. It's hard to figure out how to do it. Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Thylacinus cynocephalus: I recommend only nominating articles where you're the main contributor. It will make the review process much easier. You are responsible for about 1.7% of the characters on the page; Bertaut has written over 70%. You can see that information here. For reference, Alexandra spent only a little amount of time trying to finish the review and has almost 20%. Familiarity with the reference material is one of the reasons to not do drive-by nominations, because they will be able to find clarifications far quicker than you will. You also didn't reach out to the main contributor to ask if they were interested; that is, in general, a very good courtesy to extend... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks for the ping ImaginesTigers. This is the first I've heard about the article being nominated for GA review - at some point in the mists of time, it must have been removed from my watchlist, otherwise, I'd have commented long before now. In essence, this was an early article for me (I've mildly improved since then), and I agree with most of the points above as regards ways to improve it and so forth. Unfortunately, I simply don't have the time at the moment to commit to bringing it up to GA standard. Maybe at some point in the future, but for right now, there's no way. Again, thanks for the ping; I appreciate it. Bertaut (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bertaut, ImaginesTigers, and Thylacinus cynocephalus: Given recent comments on the subject from both substantial contributors and the nominator, and the scale of improvements required, I think it would be best to Fail this nomination. That will give all parties more than adequate time to sort out the issues and renominate when these edits have been made. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)