Talk:Mirror's Edge/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC) While I know this won't be a popular move, I really don't feel this meets GA quality as of yet.

• There are some reference issues, namely one reference that is simply a youtube link, and several others with visibly incomplete information. A few paragaphs not counting the plot section are also completely unsourced.

All paragraphs outside of the Synopsis section are now referenced. All references now have at least title and url information encoded in the citation, dates and author names are missing from about one-sixth.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• While free-use images are nice...this borders on abusing it, there's no other way to put that. It doesn't really need that many, does it? Both of those under synopsis can be removed, and Gameplay's really don't add a lot either.

The article for Portal has two non-free images under the Synopsis section. I believe that one non-free image is good enough to illustrate the section on Gameplay. The cutscene image in the Reception section is also not essential, but I feel it does a good job of illustrating one of the main criticism leveled against the game (others, such as its short length, are less easy to illustrate).AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• The prose is in a few spots choppy, and there are several one-sentence paragraphs. That really needs to be looked at.

Will work further on the prose and integrating sentences into paragraphs.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely getting there, but as of now...it's just not up to snuff. I'm sorry.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article's flaws have been addressed, and have re-nominated it. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)