Talk:Mass Effect 3: Citadel

Mass Effect 3: Citadel 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: January 6, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Stardew Valley Guidebook (2 participants)
Train simulator (disambiguation) (6 participants)
Preston Arsement (2 participants)
Jackpot World (1 participant)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (5 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (5 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (5 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (14 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mass Effect 3: Citadel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Reyk (talk · contribs) 10:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one on. Hopefully I can get the review done within a week or two. So far it all looks pretty good. Reyk _YO! 10:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
No concerns here. The article contains a good variety of sources and everything is properly referenced.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Congrats on a well written article. Reyk _YO! 17:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor points

For the Development and Release section, this source suggests that it's not available for the WiiU. Is that still the case, and is it worth mentioning in the article?

In the first paragraph of "gameplay", should it be "defuse" rather than "diffuse"?

In the 2nd paragraph on Gameplay, the last sentence needs a source. It's also a little unclear whether the clone's tactics change during the fight or whether the clone's class and abilities are pre-selected to match Shepard's. IIRC it's the latter, but it could be clearer.

Nominator response

Thanks for the review! I apologize that it has taken me so long to respond. I somehow missed the original notice - So sorry about that!

Thanks for providing this information. To be honest, the WiiU version slipped my mind. After some research, it does not appear that the DLC was ever released for the WiiU. This was added to the Development section.

Fixed.

I found a citation for that last sentence, but in all honestly, I am not sure how reliable it is. If you do not feel that GamingBolt is reliable, just let me know and I will modify the sentence to simply say "The story culminates in a boss fight" or something, and then I should be able to use a more reliable citation. I also tweaked the sentence to be a bit clearer.--Ktmartell (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I think that's a reliable enough source for this particular claim. The less contentious the claim, the less spectacular the source needs to be IMO. Reyk _YO! 17:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary

I don't know how to actually put in sources, but i made a plot summary that was removed without one. Could someone put my summary (or put a different one in) back? My position on the matter is that there should be at least some kind of plot summary on the page. If no sources are avaliable, it's better to have something there than nothing. Leaves it for sources to be put in later. Noahop3000 (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]