The original is one of my favourite games, too bad I didn't get to review that one, but here's my substitute... FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The photo under development seems somehow unrelated to the subject. What's the purpose of it?
I couldn't pull any images from the other MediEvil games as they're non-free. I thought that a picture of the city they're developed in would be the next best thing, just like some editors put pictures of the consoles they're released on in the development sections. I went ahead and removed it, as it wouldn't affect the criteria. JAGUAR 19:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The game's story begins in the year" "The story of the game" might sound a bit more eloquent...
The rest of the sentence above is in past tense, which is weird, since it starts in present tense. Why not "when an evil sorcerer named Zarok plots to take over the kingdom" or some such?
True, I didn't realise that until now! Changed per your suggestion JAGUAR 19:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any source for the game story summaries?
Just as we speak, I have the manuals to the first two games right in front of me. I've added the citations to their pages. I should probably do this to their actual articles too, but plot sections in media articles don't have to be sourced JAGUAR 19:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The game summaries seem inconsistent in content. The first game gets a very long plot summary, but little other info, while the opposite is true for the other games.
I've tried expanding the other two slightly. It's no secret that the first game has a more sophisticated plot its predecessor, and its remake has an identical plot. JAGUAR 19:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see you made a change based on a comment I since removed.[1] I think you can change it back to what it was, because I made the comment while mistakenly believing this article was about the first game in the series. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see how it sounds that way now, I've reverted it JAGUAR 19:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Thanks for taking this review! I believe I've addressed everything so far. Sorry for getting to this so late. Yeah, I loved the first two games in the series, but I've never had the remake for the PSP. It's a shame that they can't bring this series back. If this gets promoted, it would conclude in my first Good Topic as all three games in the series are already GA. JAGUAR 19:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! They should make a film... One thing I was puzzled about, since only the first game is titled only Medievil, why doesn't that one get this article title, and this could be called MediWvil (series)? I guess that's why I was confused and thought this was about the first game. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did move this page to MediEvil (series) but it got reversed for no reason. I then requested that the actual first video game be renamed to MediEvil and this to MediEvil (series), but it got rejected. I don't get it. JAGUAR 19:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Maybe I'll make a new move request later... FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that would be great! It should definitely be moved back. JAGUAR 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"and was described as a "fusion" of Capcom's Ghost'n Goblins combined with the art style of Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas." Described by who to who?
By Sorrell. Reworded. JAGUAR 19:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"later recalled that female gamers considered Sir Daniel to be endearing, and was considered a sex symbol in France." From the PDF, it seems the last statement is somewhat in jest, so perhaps it could be replaced with the less hyperbolic fact that the game itself was popular with women?
I've removed the second half of the sentence and placed "endearing" in quotes. I'm not too sure if it's a fact either... JAGUAR 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"first games to be developed alongside the PlayStation analogue controller." The meaning of "alongside" is a bit vague. Developed for? With the controller in mind?
Developed with the controller in mind, reworded this JAGUAR 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The second game isn't mentioned under "music" at all.
I haven't got any information regarding the second game's music, but all I know is that it was composed by the same "Bob & Barn" duo, so I added a little about that JAGUAR 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"mostly praised upon release, with the atmosphere, visuals and music of both games being the most praised aspects" Seems repetitive.
Rephrased JAGUAR 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"not age well overtime" Pretty sure over time should be two words here.
My bad. Fixed JAGUAR 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"did not age well overtime considering the graphically superior PSP remake." I'mnot sure what is meant by this sentence.
The reviewer was comparing the first game to its PSP remake, so I rephrased that to make it a bit clearer JAGUAR 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"especially Tom Baker's role as the narrator and Grim Reaper." Both names overlinked.
Removed JAGUAR 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"and was also re-released on the PlayStation Network in 2007." Only mentioned in intro, should be mentioned in the article body as well.
Mentioned in the MediEvil subsection JAGUAR 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"charlatan knight" Only described as such in intro.
I made a mention in the body JAGUAR 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Formerly known as Millennium Interactive, development of the first MediEvil began in 1995" This sentence makes it seem like the game was formerly called Millennium Interactive...
Rephrased JAGUAR 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"heavily inspired from" Inspired by. Also, "heavily" is a bit loaded, and only used in the intro.
Removed "heavily" and changed to "inspired by". JAGUAR 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: all done so far! Please let me know if there's anything else that I can do... JAGUAR 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, all looks good to me, so passing. And stay tuned for some title discussion... FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]