# Talk:Perfect Dark (2010 video game)

Inside Xbox interview
Giant Bomb interview
Inside Gaming (Machinima.com) interview
For article expansion and sourcing improvement. --Teancum (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Added Plus XP interview reference in Enhancements subsection. <--Niwi3 (talk) 22:46, 08 February 2011 (CET)
Added About.com review reference in Gameplay section. <--Niwi3 (talk) 23:40, 08 February 2011 (CET)

Would it be a good idea to include a plot section? or is it enough with the lead? --Niwi3 (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2010 (CET)

Yes, though an abbreviated version, just like the Gameplay section.  If users need to read the more complex plot they can view the N64 article. I've set up the article in prep for it. --Teancum (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I did my best. That's the best way I can abbreviate it. If you want to remove something, feel free. --Niwi3 (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2010 (CET)

I think it would be better to move the Gameplay section under the plot section in order to avoid text compression between the gameplay screenshot and the Infobox. In addition, it would match the sections order of other Perfect Dark articles. --Niwi3 (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2011 (CET)

Problem is, then the chronology will line up directly under the infobox, moving it out of line with the prose, or it will line up next to the infobox, presenting the same problem.  If compression is the issue, moving the image from Gameplay to Development might work out better, so long as the Development section is large enough to handle such a tall image.  It's more a development-type image anyway. --Teancum (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about renaming the Enhancements subsection to "Enhancements and changes" since the fact that all the multiplayer options are unlocked from the start is not an enhancement, but a change. <--Niwi3 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2011 (CET)

Oppose - if more things were merely changes I might be of a mind to sway, but depending on your point of view unlocking all the multiplayer options could be considered an enhancement/improvement. --Teancum (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand it's not a mere change. My point of view is that this feature makes the multiplayer challenges somewhat useless, as there is not an actual reason to complete them. In any case, I suppose you're right, it depends on the point of view. <--Niwi3 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2011 (CET)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Perfect Dark (Xbox Live Arcade)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Swarm X 20:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, the first thing I did was look at the previous review. I have to say, it doesn't look like any of the major issues still exist, but I there's some issues that I'll list before I do a final check.

"a new special agent for the Carrington Institute. On her first mission, she is sent to meet an insider from the dataDyne corporation."
That wording should be changed so people who are unfamiliar with the game can relate.
"most reviewers felt that the game is still a fun and exciting shooter."
That's one of those phrases that just doesn't sound neutral. It sounds promotional, even. It simply needs to say that most critics liked the game, instead of telling the reader that it's "fun and exciting".
I agree that the "Enhancements" section could be changed to "Enhancements and changes". Not a big deal though.
A 'see also' section should be added. (this actually isn't needed)
GA checklist will be up in a moment. Swarm X 20:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

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, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Pass
Apart from my above comments, everything else looks good. Swarm X 20:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article so quickly. I've fixed the issues you listed. If there is anything else that I should know, please let me now. <--Niwi3 (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2011 (CET)
Alright, good work. I have no other concerns, so I'll go ahead and list the article. Swarm X 23:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)