Talk:Snow (2003 video game)
(Redirected from Talk:SNOW (video game))
Latest comment: 9 years ago by ProtoDrake in topic Issues addressed
 | Snow (2003 video game) has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 4, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Snow (2003 video game) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 August 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Snow (visual novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 21:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll get to this in a couple of days. Looking forward to it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Review
editHere's what jumped out at me.
- "Snow follows a branching plot line with multiple endings, and depending on the decisions that the player makes during the game, the plot will progress in a specific direction." - Leaving the fact that it isn't referenced (this kind of story structure is something of a given), I feel it might be better suited to the plot section. But that's just a suggestion.
- "On July 25, 2003, a 192-page art book called Snow Art Works was released by Paradigm, containing story and character explanations, images from the visual novel, and more." - The "and more" bit sounds rather like a sales pitch. Please adjust it to be more neutral.
- All the Amazon refs need their urls updating and/or archiving. Archiving the online references is highly advisable if possible.
That's it really. Aside from that, it seems alright. Once these issues are addressed, or I see something else, then it's good to go. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Issues addressed
editI think that I fixed the main issues with the article, for the most part. Is the article good to go now? Also, the review was really helpful, thanks for your time!
--GIR556 (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, good to go. Nice work. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)