Talk:Tomb Raider: Chronicles/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rhain (talk · contribs) 00:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one! Expect some comments shortly. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• Remove full stops from footnotes, as they are sentence fragments
• Consider listing the platforms with {{ubl}}, per template documentation
• The PlayStation, Windows release dates should probably be split per platform, considering the different EU and NA dates
• Unlink video game
• Windows and Dreamcast → Windows, and Dreamcast

Gameplay

• Unlink video game
• four locations; → four locations:
• Link Tomb Raider in the first paragraph's last sentence, and unlink in the second paragraph's first
• She can search the area → Lara can search the area
• far off areas → distant areas
• themes and mechanics; → themes and mechanics:
• Russian levels includes → Russian levels include (or Russian level includes)

Plot

• I don't think the reference is necessary in the first paragraph
• Unlink Rome
• submarine and wounding → submarine, and wounding

Development and release

• speaking in a 2016 retrospective on the Core Design Tomb Raider games → speaking in 2016 or remove entirely
• Consider removing In a different interview,
• Final Fantasy IX and Dark Earth → Dark Earth and Final Fantasy IX
• gameplay theme; Rome → gameplay theme: Rome
• PC version → Windows version
• second disc. This was done as → second disc, as
• There were several continuity errors—unless I'm missing something, the ref only explicitly refers to one
• not referring to the original game's script beforehand—according to Sandham, it seems more like he didn't refer to it "properly", not that he didn't refer at all
• very short → short
• Windows and Dreamcast → Windows, and Dreamcast
• Consider removing of that year
• promotional ads → promotional advertisements
• November 24 → 24 November
• December 15 → 15 December

Reception

• GameRankings is generally discouraged if Metacritic is available per WP:VGAGG, but these scores are quite different so I'll leave it to you
• Review table:
  • Replace {{Rating}} with plain text (e.g. {{Rating|3|5}} → 3/5) per WP:VG/REC
    • done.
  • The table seems to imply Edge gave three scores per platform, not one overall; consider removing
  • The Next Generation and X-Play reviews either need to be added in prose or removed from the table
    • They were being used. They were the NextGen and Extended Play reviews. I've adjusted them to be more obvious.
      • Oops, that's my bad—I wasn't aware of their name changes. Feel free to restore the original version—perhaps even consider custom parameters to use the contemporary names. ☔
• These paragraphs appear to be grouped by platform, but it's a little confusing to follow
  • The second paragraph doesn't make it clear that it's discussing the PlayStation version until the second sentence
  • The third paragraph starts with PlayStation reviews, but has two non-specific reviews in between
    • I've done my best to better deliniate; general reviews in their own paragraph, PlayStation paragraph clearly shown.
      • That's pretty much exactly what I was looking for, thanks! ☔
• Second paragraph:
  • despite having improved graphics and a good story, the controls → the game had improved graphics and a good story but the controls
  • graphics, praising its details and level design → graphics, details, and level design
  • but again noted → but noted (or but similarly noted)
• Third paragraph:
  • varied opinions; → varied opinions:
  • Reinier → Reiner
  • Mcnamara → McNamara
  • very negative → negative
  • releases. All reviewers → releases, and all reviewers
• Fourth paragraph:
  • the Dreamcast version of The Last Revelation → The Last Revelation's Dreamcast version
  • praised it as graphically → praised the Dreamcast version as graphically, and from the PlayStation version → from the PlayStation
  • Official Dreamcast Magazine (UK) → Official Dreamcast Magazine (UK)
• Fifth paragraph:
  • Eurogamer, → Eurogamer's John Bye
  • mixed on of → mixed on
  • grown up → grown
  • positive generally → generally positive
  • every year → yearly
  • its series decline and its formula → its decline and formula

Legacy

• Italicise (or, rather, unitalicise) Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness in the hatnote using |l1=
• The Angel of Darkness released in 2003 → The Angel of Darkness (2003)
• reception and lead to Eidos taking the property → reception, leading Eidos to take the property

References

• From this revision:
  • Ref 2: consider adding the English title using |trans-title=
  • Ref 2: author is Seiji Nakamura
  • Ref 14, 44: remove |author=
    • WHy did you want me to remove the IGN interview author? The multiple authors for the EGM one I get, but the other's credited at the bottom of the article.
      • Nothing wrong with either of those; I was referring to "Edge staff" in the two Edge refs (now #13 and 43 in this revision). Looks like you've addressed the first; I'll catch the second on my way out. ☔
  • Ref 21 and 22: author is Ash Kapriyelov, consider removing (fan site)
    • The reason I used these is because they were accepted in the article for Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation, and the policy on fan sites as I've experienced it is that they're usable for interviews with original staff members. I can remove them if absolutely necessary, but it would part-gut the development section.
      • Sorry, I should have been clearer; I was specifically referring to the mention of "(fan site)" in |website=, as it looks inconsistent with the other refs. Considering using Core-Design.com instead. ☔
  • Ref 34: author is Amer Ajami, date is 18 August 2000, add |url-status=live
  • Ref 40, 41, 42: considering combining using one link, add |publisher=
  • Ref 66: italicise Tomb Raider in parentheses
  • Some changes to publishers:
    • Ref 5, 28, 30: add |publisher= (whether you add the contemporary ZDNet or current Fandom, Inc. is up to you)
    • Ref 7, 8, 29: add |publisher=Ziff Davis
    • Ref 20: Ziff Davis → ZDNet and link
    • Ref 24: remove Irish Times Trust, considering adding |agency=PA Media
    • Ref 31, 62, 65: replace |website= with |publisher=
    • Ref 32: add |publisher=Eidos Interactive
    • Ref 33, 44: Future Publishing → Future plc
    • Ref 35: consider adding |publisher=Aetas Inc.
    • Ref 36: add |publisher=Aspyr
    • Ref 37, 38, 39: add |publisher=CBS Interactive
  • Inconsistent linking (no need to avoid duplicate linking here):
    • Ref 9, 51, 52, 64: link GameSpot and Red Ventures
    • Ref 11, 43, 57: link Ziff Davis
    • Ref 23, 53, 54, 55, 67: link IGN and Ziff Davis
    • Ref 25: link PlayStation Store
    • Ref 44: link Edge
    • Ref 45: link Electronic Gaming Monthly and Ziff Davis
    • Ref 46: link Game Informer and FuncoLand
    • Ref 50: link GamePro and IDG Entertainment
    • Ref 56: link Imagine Media
• I think I've addressed everything here aside from the one comment I made.

Images

• File:Tomb Raider - Chronicles.png and File:TR Chronicles gameplay.jpg are non-free works with sufficient rationale and commentary to justify their usage

Result

That's it for now! Mostly minor stuff, with lots of nitpicking—as before, anything written like this is purely a personal suggestion that can safely be ignored without impacting the review. Putting this on hold until my comments have been addressed. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rhain: Did my best to address everything. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: Looks great, thanks! I've responded above, but I believe you've addressed everything. My only recommendation would be to italicise titles of works in references per MOS:CONFORMTITLE. I'll make some minor edits on my way out, but this is yours: ‍! Great work. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)