Talk:Resident Evil: Revelations/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 21:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Expect input in a day or two. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Review

Generally, a very good article. There are a few minor points that I noticed.

• "In addition to the single-player campaign, Resident Evil: Revelations offers an action-oriented mode, called Raid Mode, where one or two players may fight their way through a selection of altered scenarios from the single-player campaign.[4]" - What kind of action-oriented mode? I think it should be made clear from the outset whether it's specifically single-player and multi-player.

Clarified with "...a more action-oriented mode, called Raid Mode, where...". I think it is not appropriate to call it multiplayer mode or co-operative mode because it can also be played by one player. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ref 7, maybe you could fill it out as fully as possible without going into specific in-game quotes, with the full release date and publisher.

Added publisher and full release date. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• "The game also supports a StreetPass functionality that allows different players to exchange items for use in the game.[14]" - If possible, maybe this sentence could be incorporated into the gameplay section, but I leave that up to your discretion.

Moved it to the gameplay section. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a way of incorporating the sales data into the reception section, as with other video game articles? If not, then I don't have any real objections for it being left there. As to the HD sales, that can remain in the HD version's section.

In my opinion, sales fit better into a release section (if the article has one) because 99% of the reception section is dedicated to the critical response. Also, incorporating the sales data into the reception section would reduce the marketing and release section to almost one ugly paragraph. If it is really an issue, I can rename the reception section to "Critical reception". --Niwi3 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Refs 1-4, maybe you could give a full release date for the book. I'm sure it can be found on an Amazon site or something.

Added full release date. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Refs in general; this is optional, but maybe you could change the author names to a last/first configuration.

Done. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That's everything. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in reviewing this article, really appreciated. I think I have addressed all the issues you brought up. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be fixed. Cheers. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't see anything else wrong with this article that stops it from being a GA. And as to the sales data, it wasn't that big an issue, and can stay as it is. This... is... a... Pass. Well done with getting this article into its current shape. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)