Talk:Alpha Protocol/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 12:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   I'd wikilink third-person perspective in the lead

   "whose level caps are fifteen" - this isn't helpful; fifteen in comparison to what? I'd drop this, or just specify level caps exist without assigning an arbitrary number to it.

   "a photojournalist with many contacts whom he meets in Taipei" - does he meet the photojournalist of the photojournalist's contacts in Taipei?

   'the game was a "Jason Bourne adventure"' - accordingly to whom?

   "They also took inspiration from other games and films" - I'd separate the games and films, as in 'they took inspiration from games X, Y and Z, as well as films A, B and C', but up to you

   "and can "never really sure" who their" - grammar in direct quote?

   "sending quality assurance and cohesion strike teams avoid problems" - grammar

   "to avoid competition with other blockbuster titles" - specifying what these were would be of interest, if the information is available of course

   'received the "Exclusive Assault Pack" and the "Stealth Weapons Pack"' - this could use some more explanation for non-gamer readers. Perhaps mention the packs give the players access to additional weapons, assuming that is the case

   "found to be dumb" - this seems a bit un-encyclopeadic, I suggest rewording it

   "calling boring when it tries to be serious" - grammar?

   "Tan called it a strange hybrid with disappointing and average gameplay, and provocative RPG systems, and called it a divisive title" - this is a very awkward sentence (two used of 'called' reads poorly)

   "Retrospectively, the game's reputation improved" - define retrospectively; mention what years these subsequent reviews came out

   "and other games should learn from it" - syntax? How about 'and said that other games should learn from it"?

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   The 1UP source is dead. An archived version exists though: [1]

   Copyvio finds one match at 42%; I'd try and trim it down a bit: [2]

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Some of the prose is a bit clunky. I made some copyedits myself, but I think it could benefit from some more. I'm happy to pass it once the issues above are addressed though. Looks very good overall. Placing on hold. Freikorp (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Freikorp: - Thanks for the review! I have addressed the issues you have mentioned above. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm happy to pass this now. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)