# Talk:Lego City Undercover

I checked out the link that was referenced after the statement that "The narrative also centers around Lego City's budgeting problems post the financial meltdown of 2008", but I didn't see any mention of it. This (and the fact that, though it would be hilarious, I have difficulty imagining LEGO going into that area) makes me believe that the info is false. Am I missing something? I mean, I couldn't even find anything that could be misinterpreted that way.--50.99.253.252 (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I now see that that sentence was inserted in between the previous sentence and the reference meant for that previous sentence; as such, the information has no source, and I removed it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.253.252 (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is full of unmarked spoilers, which reveal the story finale in a really nasty manner. This should be fixed ASAP!
81.95.207.71 (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a webpage, blog or forum. Wikipedia articles cover the whole of the subject, therefore articles will always contain plot elements. We don't remove plot content and we don't add spoiler warnings. - X201 (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 Not done...as per WP:Spoiler. DarkToonLink (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

At the moment there is no Story/Plot section, with only some references to the story in other sections. This may be confusing for a reader so maybe the plot should be clarified with its own section. I'd be happy to contribute to that. DarkToonLink (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So yeah now there's a massive story section... DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 13:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Needs to be paragraphed and shortened ASAP. The way it is now is absurd, did someone copy it straight from somewhere? 79.136.116.120 (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Holy crap, you're right. That expanded very quickly, just a little while ago there was no Plot section! I'll have a look in the history, but I don't think it was copied. I'll tag it as too long and maybe work on it some time... Thanks, DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 13:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I added the excessive detail note. There are a few mistakes and informal languages uses in there too. Thanks for pointing it out! I will come back to this tomorrow, but now, I do need sleep... DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 13:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Well it has been shortened quite a bit, although some IPs keep adjusting it. Let's see how this goes. There is also a hidden not to remind people about WP plot policy. DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 07:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the main developers of this game posted to Miiverse that a Lego City Undercover 2 is possible in the future. Now I know it could be anyone posing as him, however he does seem believable and his Miiverse name matches up with other names he has used.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.9.240.9 (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 

I would know what is the music in the february trailer (the one when Chase McCain has jumping when he's on a boat and says "Waffles", I can't post the link because CAPTCHA picture don't show), if you know it
109.213.192.183 (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lego City Undercover/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 18:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 
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): 

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 non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)
Infobox

For publishers, since WB does all non-Wii U versions, I think you can label it as Other platforms there, since they are mentioned later on.
Done
Since the Wii U version and the other versions have a big release gap, I'd recommend putting other platforms and releases in a dropdown menu.
Can you link me to another article that does something like this so I know what it should look like, or an MOS?
The genre is mentioned in the infobox, but not the article. Also, make sure to cite the genre outside of the infobox (the 4Players source should be fine to do that).
Cited
The multiplayer aspect is only mentioned in the reception and infobox; the fact that it's discussed in reception means it should be mentioned elsewhere, either in gameplay or in the announcement and release section.
Done
Erin Roberts being a director but not mentioned seems like a significant omission. Is there nothing to say about their involvement?
There's this, but the sentence that follows says Satoru Iwata helped write the music, so I doubt its credibility.
Similarly, most people in the infobox aren't mentioned in the article or referenced. To me, it either suggests they aren't discussed in secondary reliable sources and shouldn't be in the infobox, or the article should be discussing their involvement.
It seems from other passed reviews that you are not considering this anymore.
I'd probably still argue to have the three producers kicked off without any sources outside of credits. Keeping Erin Roberts is fine, since it is a pivotal role for the game, especially if you attach this interview: [1]
Plot

Just at a glance, my major concern is whether we should even have this much of a plot. It may be bias, but I can't imagine Lego City Undercover needing five meaty paragraphs. Try to cut it down as much as you can, focusing only on the most essential parts.
Im not too familiar enough with the source to adequately determine what's necessary and what isn't, so I reached out to WP:DISCORD for suggestions.
Development

The source doesn't seem to clarify that it's the first time Nintendo has worked on a Lego game.
Hmm, not sure how that happened... I cut this.
Reception

I feel like the reception table should be only for the Wii U, due to how big a gap there is between the two release windows. I mean, there's an entire column for a console release that has only two reviews and one aggregate.
You don't have to tell me twice
Being cited to only one source, I don't think it can be said that it is a "common positive"
Cited some more sources
The author of the Destructoid review should be stated in the text to be consistent; same with Edge
Done for Destructoid; Edge lists its author as "Edge staff".
"Although Destructoid saw the collectibles as a reason to remain invested in the game after completing the story,[19] and Oertel contrarily referred to the overworld secrets as "irrelevant".[18] Bischoff appreciated that the collectibles felt like an addition rather a necessity, unlike previous games.[24] Vehicles were received positively, but some cited poor handling." I feel this sentence is kind of long and disjointed. It doesn't seem like one leads into the other.
Changed some wording, moved the vehicles sentence to a different paragraph.
I wonder if it wouldn't be worth reshuffling the reception, as I think putting discussion of the gameplay at the end feels a little atypical.
Moved it to the second paragraph. I usually organize the reception as "Good stuff - Bad stuff - Mixed opinion stuff", but gameplay does feel out of place there, especially since the first has a similar theme.
Images

I feel like the screenshot isn't a great way to show off the game. The scene seems a little messy and disorganized, and I couldn't immediately recognize Chase in the screenshot.
Changed.
Panini!, this review has been sitting since June. Can you please take a look, or if you are busy IRL, provide a timeframe for your response? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Whoops, I must've lost track of this one! I'll get to this as soon as I can, within the next day or so. Panini! • 🥪 17:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
@Cukie Gherkin That should be all of it! Panini! • 🥪 19:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey, sorry, I missed this notification. My main concern is that the plot still seems long. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh, right! I completely forgot that one was still outstanding. I'll finish that one now. Panini! • 🥪 14:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Cukie Gherkin I've shortened the plot to under the 700 MOS plot word limit. Panini! • 🥪 21:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@Panini!: All right, checked it over, looks good. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)