Talk:Manhunt 2/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Erachima (talk · contribs) 01:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff to fix, by section

Images

File:Manhunt2gameplay.jpg has a rather poorly worded rationale. Fix this up please. The other image is fine.

Recently filled up the rationale for File:Manhunt2gameplay.jpg 180.190.137.164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still find the image to be somewhat weak. I would appreciate if you could fill in some details of what specifically requires it to be understood. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Y

Gameplay

Grammar and wording have notable issues here. "The player assumes the role of either Daniel or Leo" is stated without explaining who Daniel or Leo are or if there's any difference between them in gameplay. "the player character must approach an enemy from behind, undetected, and kill them, while also incorporating gun play and brawling." implies that you have to brawl and shoot while executing, which I think is not intended. "While out of combat, players must hide from enemies by simply staying out of their point of view or hiding in the shadows." should be part of the next paragraph, "also" is unnecessary in the sentence "has also been tweaked from the original", and "original" should likely read "previous game", etc.

In short, it appears that all the necessary information is here, but the presentation is lacking. I would recommend rearranging this entire section as follows:

First brief paragraph explains core mechanics.
Second paragraph explains stealth/non-combat and how it has changed from Manhunt 1.
Third paragraph explains execution/combat and how it has changed from Manhunt 1.

Finally, something should be said about the fact that the execution levels were previously relevant to a score system but are no longer.

Fixed it somehow, but I instead divided the gameplay into 4 parts to make reading easier. 180.190.246.252 (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I got busy, but I finally removed the excessive "also" word. Fixed some of the grammar too and added some stuffs.180.191.224.93 (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the use of 'player' to 'players' (to better justify the use of 'they') and adjust the text accordingly. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Y

Without knowing anything about Manhunt's story, I'm just curious if the plot can't be tightened up. I have no specific qualms, just legitimately curious if it's possible. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Development

~~I see one spot that badly needs a citation, and templated it. What is an "SCE event"? I've corrected the other wording issues here myself.~~Y

Fixed 180.190.137.164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Ah, the meat of the article. Good work here. Y

Reception

Y

Overall, nice work, just fix these last few bits and you're Good.--erachima talk 01:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query

What remains to be done here for the article to meet GA standards? There were many edits to the article extending a couple of days after the final update here on September 17. erachima, can you please post a status report? You have checked for grammar, I see; did you also check for close paraphrasing and the like? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been rather preoccupied both here and offline and nobody pinged me. I'll see if I can give it a look this evening in... about 4 hours. --erachima talk 23:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over two weeks since the above; pinging erachima again... BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As User:erachima has taken some time off from editing, I will volunteer my services in finishing the GA assessment. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please finish it if your offer is still valid; if not, please let me know and we'll look to find another reviewer. This review has been ongoing for two-and-a-half months now. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make sure to do a full review in the next two days. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

This is among the harder points for me. The article uses numerous unreliable sources, including Wii Games, Project Manhunt (and other related sources), N4G (which links back to its original source, a dead link that may also be unreliable), GameFAQs, and YouTube. In addition, what makes [1], [2], pr [3] notable? You also must fix some sources that are missing details such as the first and last names of the authors. Finally, make sure to go to the external links tool provided in this GA review; there are quite a few dead links and other problematic links. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Im sad to say that i might not be able to edit the article and fic thos sources. My hometown ws hit by typhoon haiyan and till no we dont have internet. Im only using borrowd wifi from relief ops. Unless someone can edit those sources, im afraid the article cannot be fixed to pass GA.Godzilladude123 (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry to hear about your problems. I'm hoping that everything clears up for you. In the meantime, while I would like to assist, I've got a lot on my plate as it is. The problems are non-trivial, so I would recommend attracting a user from the Video games WikiProject to assist with the article and cleaning it up. Once you and the editor feel the article has fixed the sourcing and spruced up any possible errors, let me know before you nominate it for good article again and I will give it a once-over. I'll also do the review once you do bring it back. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]