Talk:Batman: Arkham Origins/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Overall, this article is quite solid. I'll just bring up a few issues I think are problematic:

• The "Critical reception" section is really long, almost a screen and a half on my decent-sized monitor. Are there ways it can be condensed? I'm thinking the two paragraphs about the city's size and activities; those could definitely be scaled down. Tezero (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Also regarding those two: the fourth paragraph of the section starts with "The game world was well received for its number and variety of side missions and distractions" but then turns into a blurb about its scale and size. This wouldn't be so bad, but then the fifth paragraph is all about side missions and distractions. Can these two paragraphs be, if not scaled down, at least mutually reorganized? Tezero (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Why aren't EGM's, GameFront's, and Kotaku's reviews in the table? Tezero (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Is GameFront even notable? It doesn't have an article here and is only referred to once. Tezero (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• The only issue I have not tied to Critical reception: The caption of the video is a little confusing. What exactly is it referring to? Tezero (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Why aren't EGM's, GameFront's, and Kotaku's reviews in the table?
    • The guideline for the table is to limit it to 8 reviews and prioritize news publications and format specific journals, and avoid just repeating similar scores which don't show the full range of reviews received. Kotaku doesn't provide a score unless I'm missing it, and EGM and GameFront's scores were similar to ones already present so for the sake of brevity they weren't included. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
      • 8? There are 9. I've also seen more than 8 in numerous GAs and FAs. I can't find anything about that restriction in the template's documentation, and even their example has 9. Tezero (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
        • "Using these will give most tables 2 aggregates, and 5 to 6 scores. This is not meant to prevent adding more references to the reception section, but it will usually give the reader a good picture of any game's reception without additional work." Now I'd swear that said 8, but regardless, there is nothing to be gained from adding more scores in there, you'd be literally adding scores for the sake of adding scores which is neither the point of the template or the reception section. Nine are used in this case because the guideline says to use format specific sources where applicable, so included the PS3 and Xbox magazine equivalents. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Alright, then, I won't contest it any further. (5 to 6 seems awfully low, I must say.) Tezero (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Is GameFront even notable? It doesn't have an article here and is only referred to once.
    • The reviews are pulled from Metacritic listings, so Metacritic thinks its notable enough to cover, and as many reviews are used as is reasonable in the prose to not rely on one reviewer, so using it once isn't something that is necessarily negative since it provides another view. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Eh, I've never heard of that rule, although I have seen numerous reviews removed for lack of notability, but what the heck. I'm not gonna keep this from GA status just for that, although its inclusion does add an extra line to an already large section. Tezero (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
        • It's inclusion presents a counterpoint to a criticism. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. In that case, refer to it as something like "Web publication GameFront" just so readers aren't like "Wait... what's GameFront? Did I miss something? Was it mentioned earlier?" Tezero (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
            • I looked at GameFront actually does have an article, so I added a link to it. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 15:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The "Critical reception" section is really long, almost a screen and a half on my decent-sized monitor. Are there ways it can be condensed? I'm thinking the two paragraphs about the city's size and activities; those could definitely be scaled down.
    • I've cut down some marginal things and moved things together, but it's going to be long, its analysing aspects covered by several entities, in line with FA Batman: Arkham Asylum and GA Portal 2. You essentially have 3 paragraphs of game related content, one about multiplayer which sadly can't be avoided and then misc stuff that isn't big enough to warrant its own section. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Eh, okay. It's a little better. Tezero (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The only issue I have not tied to Critical reception: The caption of the video is a little confusing. What exactly is it referring to?
    • It refers to gameplay, you'll have to give me more information because I'm not clear what is confusing about it, but I wrote it so it will make sense to me. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Is it Detective Vision? The Freeflow combat system? Upgrading of his abilities? You may want to put what's pictured. Or is it all of them? The video wouldn't load. Tezero (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
        • It's all of them, the video depicts a segment of gameplay which incorporates everything mentioned in the caption. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Alright, fair enough. Tezero (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Also, I just remembered this; it's why I didn't put "yes" for NPOV. "Arkham Origins's boss battles were one area of improvement over its predecessors; they offered dynamic, multiphase conflicts with their own stories." Says who? Tezero (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The sources in the text. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Would you mind adding a disclaimer for subjectivity, like "Critics agreed that Arkham's..."? Tezero (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Done. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 15:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review/improve the article Tezero! DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 17:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)