Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: James086 (talk · contribs) 17:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC) These are things I think need to be addressed:

• In the Gameplay section there are 2 sentences repeated, also the last sentence could probably be integrated into the sentence before it. "The game's multiplayer mode uses Halo: Reach's engine,[11] and features seven maps. Six of the maps are remakes of Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2 maps. Seven of the available maps have been updated and re-released using Halo: Reach's engine. Six of these maps are competitive multiplayer maps that are remakes from Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2. Each map has two variants, classic and enhanced. Anniversary also ships with a Firefight map, where players fight against waves of enemies with the assistance of friendly non-player characters or human players. The setting of the Firefight map is taken from a Combat Evolved campaign level."

• I think there should be some text in the Plot section unless there is consensus somewhere that says otherwise. Something along the lines of: "Anniversary's plot is word-for-word identical to the original game's."

• The last sentence of the Development section could introduce confusion with 343 Industries and 343 Guilty Spark, perhaps it should say "Since 343 Industries developed..." for clarity.

• In the first sentence of the Marketing section there is redundancy "later followed up with", could it be reduced to just "followed with"?

• In the next sentence is the word "unveiling" necessary?

• Is the MJOLNIR armour for their Xbox Live avatar or in-game multiplayer avatar?

• In Marketing the sentence doesn't flow well: "and Halolivingmonument.com website to celebrate"

• Should also be an external link to that site either in-line or in the external links

• Was the Pizza-Hut promo a "tie-up" or "tie-in"?

• In Reception this doesn't flow well: "which it brought compare to classic version"

• This doesn't flow well either "The Guardian gave the positive comment by saying"

• Images are correctly tagged, low-res etc., the article is well referenced, covers everything it should and neutral. Nice work. James086^Talk 17:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: If I may, the lead does not properly mention reception. --JDC808 ♫ 22:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, I think it's ready to pass once there's a bit of expansion to the reception in the lead section. James086^Talk 11:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. --JDC808 ♫ 19:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added a few lines to sum up the section as it stands now. Apologies for the wait. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

✓ Pass - Listed it as a Good article. James086^Talk 17:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)