Talk:Metroid II: Return of Samus/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Introducing 'gameplay' with "Metroid II's layout is similar to that of its predecessor, Metroid." and then stopping there, indicates that the reader hase a prior knowledge of Metroid [I]. Could you not elaborate more about the particulars, since there are bound to come readers (yours truely for instance) who have not seen or read the first game? Again, I would like to see mention of an 'adventure platform shooter' (or what now the correct term is) and more detail about the general gameplay, before going into the details of how the game differes from the first.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold until the comments have been resolved. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what d'ya think now? Gary King (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Much better :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"It introduced new gameplay elements to the series, such as allowing players to save their progress and continue in another session." This sentence is just false. Original Metroid already had a save system: [1]. Also could we get some mention of the announced but cancelled Game Boy Color port? --Mika1h (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay done Gary King (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)