This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Prose is clear and consistent throughout the article. I would recommend that [...] known as Vigors in Infinite[citations] [...] become enclosed in commas. This is to distinguish the clause for readers unfamiliar with the series, and to attach the footnotes to punctuation. Under Reception, the second paragraph (beginning Common complaints included the episode's short runtime[citations]) should have its citations attached to punctuation. The citation attached to Levine's name under the image in Development should be moved to directly after the quotation itself. I also recommend giving the sentence beginning In Episode Two, Elizabeth wakes up […] its own paragraph to emphasise it; the stressed italics don't lend well to a quick skim. A separate heading for each is also an acceptable idea. These are the only issues with this section, and very minor ones. Under the final quoted review in Reception from Justin McElroy, fan-fiction could be wikilinked, but it is not mandatory.
The length of Episode One's summary is 256 words. Episode Two is given more focus than Episode One, and goes over the MOSVG prescribed, and runs a little over the MOS for episodic content (300) by 101 words. Some phrases, such as man of the people, feel extrenuous.
Rigorously referenced. No explicit reference is given for the game's release on individual platforms aside from the infobox with links to the Metacritic scores for PC, PS3, and Xbox 360 (references #26-31).
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
The game's positive and negative criticism is well-balanced, and the positivity towards Episode Two is supported judiciously with well-chosen sources. Sources from the article's Talk page have also been incorporated into the Reception section.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
An additional image would be appreciated for the Plot section, but given the article's short length and relatively small scope, those currently in place are sufficient.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Some minor changes required for the article to be promoted to GA. The article is, on the whole, tautly written and well-referenced.
Hey
Imaginestigers thanks for the review. I'll work on these changes this weekend. As a note for future reviews, if you change the status of the GAN template on the talk page to on hold that will notify the nominators that the review is complete and work needs to be done.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk13:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)reply