Talk:Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Overall, a fairly decent article. There are a few things that need to happen before it can pass as GA, however.

• Lead:
  • The lead doesn't mention anything about what the game's plot or gameplay are like. Also missing is any mention of its development or marketing {WP:LEAD)

    fixed

• Body:
  • The "Gameplay" section doesn't do enough to explain what the heck Pokemon is to the uninitiated, in my opinion. Perhaps moving the plot section before and giving more of an introduction would help, along the lines of "This is World X. There are creatures called Pokemon here that X. People called trainers use them for fights, they are captured, traded, etc." Just the broad strokes. Doing so means that you wouldn't have to amend much of the gameplay section.

    I have no idea what to do for this. This may be something that would help it for FA, but for GA this should be enough.

    • Avoiding jargon, being clear and concise, and addressing the main aspects of the topic are good article criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  • "New features" section: Well, as the article says, not all of it is new features. "The player may talk to the Pokémon, and occasionally it may pick up certain items." → those items are what, exactly? If you aren't going to name specifics, axe the "certain".

    fixed

  • "Another new item is the GB Sounds, which plays the game's score in its original chiptune format."→unsourced, and confusing. The game's original score? Are you referring to the score from Gold and Silver? Since it's never been mentioned before this point it's hard to tell.

    fixed

    • Still unsourced. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  • "HeartGold and SoulSilver introduced many features that were not included in the original Gold and Silver."→such as?

    linked to new features section

  • "A "Pikachu colored Pichu" ..." → I took a stab at rewording this. The tense of the prose suggested that the promotion was still going on, which makes no sense unless you clarify.
  • Critical reception: The first paragraph goes through lots of print publications, but the second paragraph treats it like it was international responses, to wit: "The response from English media outlets has been highly positive". This needs to be reorganized.

    fixed

  • "1UP.com gave", et al: Publications don't really give the scores, the people writing the games do. Unless an article is signed as "IGN staff" or such, it's best to name the actual critic, e.g., "IGN's Craig Harris".

    fixed

  • If you've got a score table, repeating "GameSpot gave them X, IGN gave them Y" is a waste of prose. Discuss the individual reception... overall? To the new features? To the technical aspects? For an example of what I'm talking about, take a look at Halo Wars's reception section; it's divided into discussions about plot, multiplayer, and gameplay, among other things.
  • " The combined sales of the two games make them the highest selling games of March" → So those are the best-selling games of March ever? Or were that month's highest-selling titles?

    fixed

  • The "Soundtrack" section isn't even a real paragraph. Fold the relevant info into the release section.

    fixed

• Misc.:
  • What makes Game Observer a reliable source, and what makes them prominent enough that their score is called out for special attention?

    removed

  • The prose needs a comb-through. I'd fixed little things here and there, but the use of passive voice is persistent and unnecessary in most instances and should be reworded where it appears. Repetitious structure is another failing of the article; every time the syntax is repeated twice or more in close proximity, change it (i.e., do something about things like "As of May 6, the games sold 8.4 million units worldwide.[47] As of July 29, the games have reached 10 million sales worldwide."

If you need to get my attention about this review, my talk page is a faster way to get a response. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have been busy recently, but I will try and fix up the article when I can. Thanks for the review. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed some things. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I added to the lead, and added editor names to the reception. Is the "Pokemon world" really not explained enough in the first gameplay pharagraph? Also, is the reception rewrite really needed? If so somebody else should do it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Letting you know I've been on a mini-vacation, but I've seen your note and will follow up on this review today or tomorrow (EST). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Is this still being worked on? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, I will try and find a source for the GB sounds, but the Gameplay and Reception rewrites will have to be done by somebody else. I asked New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs) if he could do it, since he has awesomely rewritten a lot of reception sections recently, but he hasn't responded. I suppose you can close the review, unless you want to halt it until that gets done. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll give the article a copy edit. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC))
        • I hope the edits addressed most of the concerns above. I also have some comments.
          1. The table has a lot of scores, many that are repetitive. There are 4 scores of 90% (Eurogamer, GamePro, GameZone, and VideoGamer.com), and I would remove 2–3 on them, because 11 scores in a table is too many.
          2. I marked some content in the "Connectivity" section with a citation need.
          3. I think accessing the Nintendo Wi-Fi should be elaborated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC))
          • • I don't really know what to remove from the reception table except maybe VideoGamer.com. I fixed the WiFi sentence I guess. Also, I removed the unsourced Pokewalker bit about losing it, since its not that relevant. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)