Talk:The Incredible Hulk (2008 video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rlink2 (talk · contribs) 21:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well written

Looks good so far. Not sure (could be wrong) that Apart from the main story, there are numerous mini-games and collectibles that can unlock new content. belongs in the lede. Sounds a bit out of the "flow", and I expect most semi open world games of this calibre have stuff like that anyway.

It's a prominent selling point of the game regardless, and since there's a whole paragraph dedicated to it in the gameplay section it's at least worth establishing beforehand. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see that. That should be fine. Rlink2 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hulk's health decreases if he is attacked, but he has the ability to regenerate it; This sounds a bit obvious and redudant. Why not write The Hulk has the ability to regenerate any health points lost during an attack, which puts the main focus on his ability to regain health.

In the development and release ection you can combine the two engine sentences by writing The game runs on the Havok game engine and FMOD audio engine in the first paragraph to keep the more technical info closer to each other.

In the reception section, make clear that the opinions of the critics are attributed to the critics. For example, the sentence The voice acting was derided for its unenthusiastic performances. can be Critics derided the voice acting for its unenthusiastic performances, so we maintain WP:NPOV. But that section does a good job of ensuring that mostly already.

Verifiable with no original research

All citations archived with web.archive.org and archive.today, so I am assuming you or someone else ran IABot on the article. This is obviously very important. Good job. Citations support the information at the article at hand.

I do have one question (I am relatively new to this), but the plot section doesn't seem to have citations? Or it doesn't need it, given the subject matter and topic at hand.

With any media that requires a plot section, references generally aren't needed since the work itself serves as the source. However, in the event there's an ambiguous element within the work that's only clarified by an outside source, then a reference would be called for. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had suspected this was the case, but just wanted to make sure. Rlink2 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Looking at other video game Good Articles, like Grand Theft Auto 4, they have mostly the same stuff (plot, story, development, etc....) which is good. Obviously, GTA 4 is a much more "notable" game so the article is longer, but still the same core portions of it. No complaints in this area, maybe someone else can add their opinion.

Neutral

Yes, see comments above. Aside from those small stuff, the article is neutral. No complaints or concerns.

Stable

Yes, check edit history of article.

Illustrated

Yes, while maybe there could always be more multimedia, I understand not everyone wants to pull out the emulator for a game that seemed to be mediocre at best. All media has been tagged with info, per requirements.

Rlink2 (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All points have been addressed. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks good to me. Other editors may have something to say, and since I am new to this I would highly value their input, but if no one says anything in the next set of days I'll "pass" this. Rlink2 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a new reviewer, you can request assistance from any of these mentors, or ask for a second opinion if you're really not certain. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I aksed for a 2nd opinion. In my personal opinion, it meets all the requirements and you've done a great job, but as I am new, I would hate for the GA to be pulled back due to something I might have missed. Its good to be on the safe side. Rlink2 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cat's Tuxedo: Ok, I gave this a second look. I'm inclined to promote this to GA, any thoughts? Rlink2 (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2: It's your call when it comes down to it. If there's no doubt left in your mind that it's worthy of promotion, no reason you shouldn't go for it. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cat's Tuxedo: Promoted. Rlink2 (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]