# Talk:Batman: The Dark Knight (video game)

I started the page off, but I'm new to this whole thing and there are still plenty of things that can be done to this page to make it better. Some help would be greatly appreciated. JFRIX (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How about deleting it. We have no clue if the game really does exist. For all we know Gary Oldman could be talking about Batman: Arkham Asylum. How do we know he isn't going to voice Gordon in that and just made a mistake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably worth deleting. 121.45.44.185 (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

some dweeb has put something stupid on this article, but seeing as my areas of expertise are Twilight and Star Wars and not Batman I don't really know what to replace it with. ~ HJHLady Renegade 11:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"This cancellation makes The Dark Knight the first Batman film made by Warner Bros. not to receive a video game translation."
Batman and Robin didn't have a game, either.
While we are on the subject, why does this "game" even have a page?  it seems kinda obselete... maybe it could just be a paragraph in the Dark Knight movie page.   216.37.136.81 (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Batman and robin had a game on play station 1...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.108.135 (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Batman: The Dark Knight (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 18:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

All of my comments are open for discussion. Once complete, I'll claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
These are my copyedits. Feel free to revert, revise, or discuss any of them.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
no concern
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
no concern
C. It contains no original research: 
no concern
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
no concern
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
"The direction ... changed when Pandemic learned that the game had to be based on the film" - Is there more detail available on this? It seems to contradict earlier statements. What did Pandemic think they were making, a generic Batman game? A "loosely inspired" one? If nothing more is available, I recommend removing this sentence. It isn't vital to the paragraph, and as-is it's more teasing than informative.
I've removed it. The Unseen64 video says it happened after they got concept art of the Joker but doesn't say if that's what made it change. JOEBRO64 11:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Works for me. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
n/a
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
n/a
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
One request for additional information under 3A. Otherwise everything looks great. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Responded above. Thanks for reviewing. JOEBRO64 11:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: whoops, forgot to ping. JOEBRO64 11:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Happy to promote this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)