Jump to content

Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ferret (talk | contribs) at 23:48, 31 March 2017 (Plot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I'll finish this by tomorrow. JAGUAR  18:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm leaving a comment because it said they were welcomed. In the section developments and changes, the three middle paragraphs have no citations. Can we fix this? Thanks. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two citations for the last paragraph of that section are also used for the three you mentioned, but I thought I would avoid putting copies of the citations at the end of each one. Would it be best to do so? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 1:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it would be standard procedure to put copies of citations for each paragraph, as to prevent confusion. Each paragraph requires at least one citation, as a rule of thumb. If the citation covers it, it should be at the end of each specific paragraph, not just at the end of the section. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep each paragraph should have at least one citation—especially for GA. Sorry for the delay, I'll get to reviewing this now. JAGUAR  20:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Lead

Gameplay

Plot

  • Is this section necessary? I think it can be safely removed as an empty header seems awkward and breaks the flow. Not sure if there's a policy on this somewhere
    • Comment We need a link back to the original plot of the game. I'm not sure of a cleaner way to do this. It did have a short sentence stating there were no changes to the plot until recently. -- ferret (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I removed the sentence as I didn't think it was needed, and I'd also noticed in the editing screen that Ferret had warned editors not to include the entire Plot summary inside the article. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll chime in and say that I think a short paragraph on the premise of the game or a condensed plot summary is probably more beneficial than an empty section. See Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary which is a featured article and has a very short summary of the original game's plot. Wikipedia does allow readers to download .pdf version and view printable versions of articles; an empty section isn't helpful in those cases. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikibenboy94, Jaguar, and The1337gamer: I've inserted a first pass summation of the original game's plot, with many details kept terse. -- ferret (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Development

  • "The remaster runs in full 1080p resolution at 60 frames per second, and uses the same engine featured in Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare." - unsourced, needs a citation
Don't worry about it. I'll be happy to overlook this part given the fact that it seems fairly obvious as most games nowadays run at 60fps/1080p on current-gen consoles. JAGUAR  20:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I meant I was looking for a citation for the Advanced Warfare engine, not the FPS bit. In the end I just removed details of the engine. No sign of a reliable source for this anywhere... -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second, third and fourth paragraphs are unsourced and will need some citations (or at least one at the end if appropriate)
  • "The majority of Modern Warfare was rebuilt from the ground up" - reads a bit informal. It looks like this comes from a quote, so it should be quoted
  • "as "Respecting the original game and gameplay experience was incredibly important for [them]"." - I think this can be safely paraphrased
  • "As Raven explained" - personifying a company/publication should usually be avoided. Does the source mention who actually said this?
"A developer from Raven" sounds good. JAGUAR  20:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing

Reception

  • I think that the reception section is slightly lacking in broadness (a key aspect of the GA criteria). Mostly notably, IGN's review is missing, and a cursory search also reveals reviews from Destructoid and Hardcore Gamer—both reliable sources per WP:VG/S. I'd recommend adding these in to cover the broadness part
  • " received "generally favorable reviews", according to review aggregator Metacritic" - no need for the comma, and link Metacritic
  • Remove all scores from the reception section's prose and add them in the reception table. This is quite important for video game articles—especially GAs—and it also offers the readers quick access to scores themselves. If you need help with the template, just ask, or its documentation can be found at Template:Video game reviews
  • The reviewer from Push Square is Joey Thurmond—add his name in the prose: Joey Thurmond from Push Square praised its graphical enhancements...
  • "and that "Modern Warfare Remastered celebrates this legacy" - needs italicising
  • The reception on could benefit from some paraphrasing as it seems to rely a bit much on quotes
  • I think the fact that it received an award from IGN could be mentioned as prose in the first paragraph of the reception section

On hold

I think that this is a solid article and an excellent first effort. All in all the reception section could benefit from some expansion and paraphrasing, and the development section will need more citations. I'll leave this on hold and will take another look at this once progress has been made. If you have any questions or need any help, please just ask! JAGUAR  21:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibenboy94: This may look like a lot, but most of it are minor tweaks and improvements. Please feel free to ask for any advice or help you may need. This is a pretty typical review and you're in a good place to finish up with just a bit more work. -- ferret (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The work is something I'm sure I'll be able to manage on my own, but I'll notify you if I have any trouble. I've added comments to some of those improvements needed above to clarify further etc. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Believe this is getting really close, with the major sticking point being the Plot. I'm going to write a brief summary shortly. -- ferret (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]