Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II/GA1

GA Review

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

All righty then. I have experience reading video game articles, and I'm a big fan of Tolkien's works, so I thought reviewing this would be fun. Overall it was a well written article. It's definitely been polished. There are just a few things keeping me from passing. Here's my list of things to be fixed:

My biggie is where you mention the expansion pack in the lead, and then never mention it again. I think it at least warrants a larger explanation somewhere in the text; maybe a paragraph in the gameplay section, or a separate section with {{mainarticle}} on the top.
In the lead: "Bonus material and a documentary featuring the game's development was released in a Collector's Edition." When was the collector's edition released?
In the second paragraph, I'm not sure "Good" and "Evil" have to be capitalized.
Gameplay: "Units can be classified into infantry, ranged, pikemen, cavalry, and siege." Grammatically incorrect. A better rendering would probably be "Units may be classified as infantry, ranged, pikemen, cavalry, or siege." The ending "siege" seems a little awkward to me as well; it's not typically a noun.
The last paragraph introduces the factions rather haphazardly. For example, when Ents are mentioned, it's rather unclear what faction they are in. Your sentence mentioning dwarves does not need the word "being" in it either.
I also thought that the Gameplay paragraph skimped on really mentioning hero units.
Development: "As the first Electronic Arts video game to be given free reign on material from The Lord of the Rings universe, several lands, characters, and creatures from the books appear for the first time visually in the game's cut scenes." Should be "appear visually for the first time."
In the development section, "Cinematic Director" does not need to be capitalized.
It was mentioned that the Xbox 360 version would provide a "unique and intuitive control scheme." Did any reviews mention this?
For refs #23 and 24, you need to mention the publisher (PC Gamer) to avoid undue confusion. For a second I thought you had cited the game or the manual!

Overall, a good article. Just fix these things up, and it should be fine. I don't really see a need to actually put it on hold; it's nothing that can't be resolved quickly. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay should be all done. Gary King (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Just another copyedit, and it should be ready for FAC. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank everybody for their contributions the article. Well done! LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 21:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!! A Featured Article!! Kudos to all contributors, especially Gary King who found the time, resources, and boldness for almost completely chopping it up and rewriting it! Spiritaway5177 (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]