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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this back in August. I should complete this by tomorrow ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The game has been supported post-launch with bug fixes, updates, and downloadable content (DLC)" - is this really worth mentioning? Surely every game now has patches and updates given to them

Removed this sentence. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "A sequel, Halo 5: Guardians, is set to be released for the Xbox One in 2015" - it's due to come out on the 27th October this year, so that might be worth mentioning

Added this along with a reference. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead summarises the article well (improving since last time), so this meets the GA criteria

• "Four years after the events of Halo 3, Forward Unto Dawn" - should be UNSC Forward Unto Dawn in its first mention only, since it's a ship (yeah I'm a Halo nerd). I think the same can apply to the Infinity

Added UNSC before the name of both ships on first mention. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph in the Development section sounds wrong. Bungie became independent in 2007 but still managed to produce two games between 2008-2010 (ODST and Reach), but this paragraph makes it sound like they stopped making Halo straight after they split with Microsoft

I've reworded this. Hopefully it is better now. Do say if it needs to be clearer. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Be careful, the third (larger) paragraph in the Development is lacking citations. It has a pile of citations at the very end of the paragraph instead of having them evenly spread

Fixed this. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Reception towards Spartan Ops was less favourable than multiplayer and campaign" - favorable, assuming this has to stay consistant with AmEng

Fixed this. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Impressive. The toolserver picks up no dead links given an article this extensive
• I noticed a couple of YouTube references in this article. Per WP:VG/RS, YouTube is only acceptable as a reference if it cites the relevant information and is from its official channel only, in this case it would be 343 Industries. I would safely lose these (if you plan on FACing) but it's your call if you want to keep these in. I think another reviewer would urge to remove them, but from where I see it they're official and should be okay

I'll look into sorting this out tomorrow. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced all YouTube references. The1337gamer (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this has improved since I reviewed in last in August, so well done on that. If those issues above can be clarified then it looks like this shouldn't have a problem with passing the GAN. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days, good luck ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing them all, I'm confident this meets the GA criteria now. Looks like we're good to go ☠ Jaguar ☠ 08:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]