Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Resident Evil 2/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Nikkimaria 16:47, 17 April 2011 [1].

Resident Evil 2[edit]

Resident Evil 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Prime Blue (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a complete overhaul in November and regular refinements since then (including copy-edits by Geoff B), I am confident that the article now fulfills all the FA criteria – so I'm giving it a shot with the nomination. The GA review mentioned that actual reviewer names rather than publications are encouraged for the reception section, though I felt that, with the immense amount of reviews referenced in prose, including the names would make the section more confusing and difficult to read than need be – so I'll leave it as is at the moment and hope it will not cause any problems. Anyway, thanks in advance for your reviews. Prime Blue (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • "The characters' real-time polygonal models are superimposed over pre-rendered still images" - what on earth does that mean? Needs to be explained in article text
  • Per Wikipedia:Music_samples, fair-use music clips "should not exceed 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter". Assuming the listed time of 1:50 (110 seconds) for the original song is correct, the clip you use is too long. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added "movable" to better explain the difference between the models and the still images. Replaced sound sample with shorter version. Prime Blue (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tending to oppose The reception section looks excessive; surely 3 paragraphs is enough to summarise everything said about the game? And that review-infobox! The legacy section, usually meant for a retrospective look at the influence and importance of a game/film/album, is strangely a detailed discussion of the RE2 storyline continued in other games.—indopug (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is an actionable opposition. Three paragraphs of the reception section cover the most important positive and negative aspects of the game as criticized by major review outlets, with another paragraph addressing the reception of ports. Two additional paragraphs are focused entirely on the notability of the game, showing its commercial success and how important the game is in comparison to other titles. Altogether, this is the standard length for featured video game articles that received a comparable amount of critical reviews (such as the recently promoted Tales of Monkey Island). You have to be more specific about what you think is wrong with the infobox. The legacy section is required to fulfill the comprehensiveness criterion of the FAC, and shows the title's impact on the continuation of the game series and its storyline, as well as the company's future business decisions.
If you do not agree with something in particular, please mention the passage in question. I am open to criticism. Prime Blue (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having reread the legacy section, I think your problem with it might have been the plot summary of the second drama album, which I also found to be too extensive in retrospect. I cut it down to the bare essentials. Prime Blue (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with Prime Blue that the Reception section is not excessive. Its a seminal title that received a significant amount of coverage; why skimp? It's not like the section's a chaotically-structured, 15-paragraph monstrosity or anything. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig/External Link check - There are no dead links but there is one dab link in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The dab link is in the video game infobox, I requested it to be delinked in the template code. Prime Blue (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The article is very comprehensive, and the prose is in good shape. Here are the issues that stood out to me.

  • Media
    • The number of non-free media in the article seems kind of excessive, but the commentary provides strong support for them. I'd say the weakest one is File:Resident Evil 1.5.png because of similarities to the main gameplay image.
      • Re: I oriented myself on comparable featured articles (Tales of Monkey Island, Chrono Trigger etc.) and tried to make the non-free use rationales as strong as possible – if you insist on removing the 1.5 image, I will do so, though I really think with the level of commentary provided on the version, it improves the readers' understanding as to what the version was like and why it was canceled.
    • For consistency, I think File:Resident Evil 2 Raccoon City.ogg should use {{Non-free use rationale}} like the other files.
      • Re: Done.
    • Maybe consider adding File:PSX-DualShock.png to the "Re-releases and ports" section. File:N64-Expansion-Pak.jpg might be another idea, but I think the dual shock would be better
      • Re: Done.
  • Structure and prose
    • "Resident Evil 1.5" and "Biohazard 2" should probably be in boldface since they are alternate names and likely search terms.
    • I think the plot goes into a bit too much detail and could be trimmed.
      • Re: Usual word limit for plot summaries is 700 words (with even some leniency applied for more extensive works, such as RPGs or graphic adventures). Current plot section is at 682 words, even though it also describes the setting of the game. I cut unimportant characters and scenes as well as the alternate story paths, while still maintaining the most important subplots not to confuse people who did not play the game.
    • Maybe split "Development" into two subsections to break up the large amount of text. "Resident Evil 1.5" and "Redesign" or something similar. Your call.
      • Re: Done.
    • Reception
      • I originally thought the same thing others said about the "Reception" section, but it was a quicker read than I anticipated. However, I think some consolidating would be good still. Some of the comments are slight variations of each other and are just too similar in my opinion.
        • Re: As far as I can see, everything included in the section addresses separate points of criticism (that's what I initially set out to do). The only thing I'd qualify as remotely overlapping are the two sentences about the writing, and I still wouldn't consider that unduly detailed or extensive.
      • The last big paragraph wasn't a quick read though. I think you could split it in two. The Game.com portion is already separate, so I would split it at the Dreamcast version instead of the Game.com version.
        • Re: Done.
      • The comments here should be attributed to the author. For example, Ryan Mac Donald of GameSpot or Computer and Video Games' Paul Mallinson. This may bulk up the section, which is even more reason to trim and consolidate.
        • Re: Done. Though I highly suggest this to be added to the guidelines if people continue to point it out as mandatory at an FA nomination – so far, it isn't mentioned anywhere and can become a major nuisance.
      • Review table
        • Excluding the aggregates, scores from fourteen publications in the review table is too many. Trim it to at least half that.
          • Re: Done.
        • I don't it is quickly apparent what the abbreviations are, especially to non-gamers. I suggest including the abbreviations in the first instance of the console name in the prose. For example, Dual Shock Ver. (DSV) and Dreamcast (DC).
          • Re: Done. Added the abbreviations to the rereleases and ports section as they do not corrupt the flow of the prose there (they seem unfitting for the lead).
        • I assume GCN is the Nintendo GameCube. Why isn't it NGC or just GC?
          • Re: GCN is the abbreviation for Nintendo GameCube normally used on Wikipedia (also the official one, NGC is Japanese-only).
    • Maybe rename "Legacy" to "Related media". Seems like a more descriptive title.
      • Re: Renamed.

I'll take a look at the references later. The article is in good shape. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Replied in-line with "Re:". Prime Blue (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked over the above changes, but will probably over the weekend.

Source review - Here is my review of the sources.

  • Ref 38, the press release from Capcom. Is there a link for that anywhere?
Re: Can't find it anymore, replaced with another source.
  • Ref 55 and 60 from the magazine Total!. Are the issue numbers really "11/99" and "8/99"? If so I think you can forgo that info because the citation also has the publication date.
Re: They didn't number their issues, removed.
  • Ref 65, 68, 69, 71, 72, and 132 from VGMDB. Is this a reliable source? If not, then you should remove the link. The remaining information is sufficient for citation purposes.
Re: As stated in the GA review, the album booklets itself are cited – the VGMdb links were just there for easier verification as they provide booklet scans.
  • Ref 88 from Famitsu. Similar to the above ones. Is Geimin reliable?
Re: See below.
  • Ref 90 also from Famitsu. I don't believe that fs.finalfantasytr.com is reliable. Do you have the issue info?
Re: Included as previous FAs had no problems with Famitsu score archives (e.g. The World Ends with You, Killer7), don't consider this contentious information.
  • Ref 108 from Official UK PlayStation Magazine. Do you have the feature title?
Re: No, that was added by another editor.
(Guyinblack25 talk 20:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Prime Blue (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. I vaguely remember this game from when I was younger, so I'll go ahead and review it. I'll be giving these comments as I read through the article.
    • "The second installment in the Resident Evil series, its story takes place two months after the events of the first game and is set in Raccoon City, a Midwestern mountain community whose residents have been turned into zombies by the T-virus, a biological weapon developed by the pharmaceutical company Umbrella." - way too long for a sentence in the lede
      • Re: Split.
    • I notice there are several links that are redirects. You might want to look through them again to make sure they go where you want them to.
      • Re: Everything leads to where it should (redirects covered by WP:NOTBROKEN).
    • I was getting a little lost in the plot section, particularly halfway through the second paragraph. Some things just sound rather sudden and unexpected in the plot, such as "Ada shows up again and sacrifices herself to rescue Leon, confessing that she fell in love with him". It just sounds out of the blue and... IDK, rushed? I had to stop, however, when I read this - "now mutated into a massive blob". Surely there is a more encyclopediac term than "massive blob"
      • Re: Mentioned her emotions in an earlier sentence so it does not jump at readers (though with the word limit, it is kind of hard to accurately portray the buildup of character-driven mystery thriller plots), also explained the pendant deal better as it might be confusing still. I think the main problem with the second point was "massive", but reworded the rest as well to give a better idea.
    • One thing I'm wondering, what sort of corporation does Umbrella claim to be?
      • Re: A pharmaceutical company (well, as mentioned in the article, they really are, the additional biological weapons business is done in secrecy).
    • I just have to say, I really like how the plot section is sourced. Other video game articles say "the video game is the source", but I like how you show the quotes and whatnot. (nothing actionable here, just saying I like it!)
    • "The development was handled by a group of about 40 to 50 people that consisted of more than half of the original game's staff" - just to make sure, you mean that the original staff would've had 80 to 100 people? I'm surprised that a sequel would have so many fewer people involved. Unless, do you mean the redesign was handled by that number of people?
      • Re: Good thing you brought this up as that's not what was meant: Among those 40 to 50 people, there were half of the original game's staff, the rest being rookies. Reworded it.
    • "Another 810,000 copies of the Dual Shock Ver. were shipped until March 1999" - two things. Does "were shipped" mean the same as "were sold"? And what does "until March 1999" mean? Does it mean "as of March 1999"?
      • Re: At this point in time, it certainly does – but the source should mean only "shipped" rather than "sold", which is why I kept that wording. Changed "until" to "as of".
    • Just a little quibble, but you use this phrase twice in the article - "though criticized for its controls, voice acting and some of its gameplay elements"
      • Re: Reworded.
    • The paragraphs in "Adaptations and Sequels" are unnecessarily long
      • Re: Split.
  • All in all, I think it's really good, and I'm willing to give it a conditional support. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is balanced. The lead does not include any material from the Music section. I imagine a sentence or two on this subject would fit in quite nicely with the second paragraph. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Joined a comment about the music with the redesign. Prime Blue (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who reviewed the article and gave comments so far! :-) Prime Blue (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments I am reading this through and make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning!) and will jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Gameplay section, I think the section would be more accessible if the first sentence was relegated down to the second last in para 1. I think it'd read better to explain in plain english what the game was about before shifting to technical detail (we then have a flow of basci --> more technical info).
Re: Done (put it at the end not to interrupt the explanation of the gameplay mechanics).
... transformed into zombies... (I changed 'turned' into 'transformed') - quibble here: are they zombies or merely zombie-like creatures? As they are alive and mutated rather than dead as such?
Re: Primary and reliable third-party sources refer to the creatures as zombies (some came back from the dead, but most were infected alive).
you are using "psychotic" to mean crazy here I hope....
Re: Yup, basically driven crazy and acting irrationally because of the circumstances.
ok.

Otherwise looking pretty good actually. There might be some more prose which can be massaged a little but I'm not otherwise seeing any clangers. I've only played RE4 so nice to read some background :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your copy-edits! Prime Blue (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm unconvinced by the prose quality and there are some things that ought to have been picked up on by now, such as the ordering of citations at the end of this sentence: "The minigame 'The 4th Survivor' depicts the successful G-virus retrieval mission of Hunk, one of the special agents sent by Umbrella,[26] whereas 'The To-fu Survivor' and 'Extreme Battle' are stand-alone missions that bear no relevance to the plot of the game.[28][12]" There are many similar examples throughout the article. And how exactly do you "bear relevance" anyway? Here are some examples of the kind of prose problems I see, but bear in mind that they are only examples:

  • "In this version of the story, however, Umbrella had already been closed down due to their illegal experiments." Are you certain that "due to" is correct here? (Hint: it isn't.)
    • Re: Changed these, but it would be helpful if you pointed out what was wrong with them, this is the first time I see a complaint about "due to". I usually keep footnotes in the order they source something in a sentence. Changed as well, but is there a MoS guideline on the order of citations?
      • "A noun is 'due to', a verb is 'owing to'". Thus "Umbrella had already been closed down owing to their illegal experiments". If your footnotes aren't sourcing everything in the sentence they follow then they're in the wrong place. Malleus Fatuorum 09:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oxford Dictionaries considers the prepositional use "part of standard English" and "common in all types of literature" now, but thanks for clearing up the difference. The footnotes are sourcing everything in the sentences, I meant that they previously followed the order they source something in a sentence itself (e.g., if fact 1 is backed up by reference [2] and fact 2 is backed up by reference [1], I would source the sentence "fact 1 fact 2" with [2][1] rather than [1][2]). That's why I'm asking if the ascending numerical order is dictated by a MoS guideline, it just made more sense to me the other way around. Prime Blue (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The development team sought to retain the level of fear from the original game ...". They couldn't possibly have "retained the level of fear", as that's an emotion felt by the players, not intrinsic to the computer programme.
    • Re: That was their intention and the reasoning behind the character change, as explained in the source. Whether they accomplished or even could accomplish that is a different issue.
  • "... Elza Walker, a college student and motorcycle racer who came to Raccoon City to look for an acquaintance". What does that mean exactly? She was searching for someone she vaguely already knew, for whatever reason, or she was trying to make a new acquaintance?
    • Re: Reworded.
  • "The amount of polygons used in enemy models was far lower ...". Far lower than what? It should be "number of polygons" rather than "amount" anyway.
    • Re: Paragraphs talk about differences between initial and final version, added a reminder.
  • "In the initial stages, producer Mikami often intervened due to disagreements with Kamiya ...". Another one of those "due to"s.
    • Re: Reworded.
  • "Shortly after, however, Resident Evil 1.5 was scrapped at a development stage of 60–80 percent". Seems to be running around the houses a bit there. Does that mean it was scrapped when it was between 60 and 80 percent complete? That's a pretty wide range in any event. Didn't they know how complete it was?
    • Re: Would seem so, but that's the range mentioned in the sources.
  • "The old story Mikami tried to end the series with was criticized by supervisor Yoshiki Okamoto who found it to be too conclusive to allow for future installments." Needs some punctuation and preferably rewriting.
    • Re: Reworded.
  • "At a time when the team did not make any progress on rewriting the scenario, Okamoto was introduced to professional screenwriter Noboru Sugimura ..." Strange choice tense in "when the team did not make any progress". How could "when" be anything other than "at a time"?
    • Re: Removed "when". Don't know what's wrong with the tense, should it be past perfect?
  • "The title was shipped with a playable preview disc of the new Resident Evil 2 version, both to promote it and to apologize to the players for its belated release." The "both" is obviously redundant.
    • Re: Removed.
  • "... the principal locations in the final build were made to look more high-flown and artistic". What does "high-flown" mean?
    • Re: Reworded.
  • "Ada is the only main character not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene because her movie model could not be finished in time." This is inherently ambiguous. It could mean that Ada is the only main character not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene, or the only one not to appear because her movie model couldn't be finished in time.
    • Re: Reworded, though I don't see the ambiguity.
      • Do you not see the difference between what you wrote and "Ada is the only main character not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene, because her movie model could not be finished in time"? Malleus Fatuorum 09:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said, no, I honestly don't. If it only meant "Ada is the only main character not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene", then the subordinate clause would not be there. Prime Blue (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me try again. There are two possible subjects in that sentence: main characters not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene and main characters not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene because their movie models weren't completed in time. Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Guess I figured out the wrong interpretation: "Out of the main characters not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene, Ada is the only one not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene because her movie model wasn't completed in time". Prime Blue (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Blue (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not involved in this nomination, but I thought I'd advise you to tone down the pedantic attitude. For example: "Are you certain that "due to" is correct here? (Hint: it isn't.)". For FAC nominators, opposition is a huge pain already; you don't need to make it worse. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the advice. I'll be sure to file it away in the appropriate place Jimmy. Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disregarding the recent disruptions, I think I've addressed Malleus' individual concerns above, and he also provided additional copy-edits to the article. If you find more mistakes to be addressed by copy-edits, please point them out. Prime Blue (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is certainly better than it was, but it still needs some work IMO. I'll offer a few more examples:
  • "Developed with a team of about 40 to 50 people ...". Why "with a team"? Wasn't it developed by a team?
yep. changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Meant something like "by using a team" rather than "by a team" before.
  • "... Resident Evil 2 was ported to Microsoft Windows, the Nintendo 64, Dreamcast and Nintendo GameCube, and also received a modified 2.5D version for the Game.com handheld." What on Earth does "received" mean here? And what does the "also" add?
removed "also". Not familair enough with gamer nuances to think of a better verb so will leave that to nominator. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Common expression used when games are ported to other systems, but reworded as "received" is used in the next sentence.
  • "A survival horror title, the game's objective is to explore different locations while solving puzzles ...". That's not the objective of the game, that's the objective of the players.
ok fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each of the two playable characters is confronted with different puzzles ...". Should be "confronted by".
I'd think "confronted with" is fine here, especially as the object (puzzle) is inanimate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One could certainly reasonably argue that, so I'm happy to withdraw that objection. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Development on Resident Evil 2 began one month after the completion of its predecessor ...". Should be "Development of".
yep, fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Development on" and "development of" are basically interchangeable.
No, they're not. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just judging from what I've come across in all sorts of sources, would be a big surprise if it happened to be an actual mistake creeping into respectable publications. Prime Blue (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happens all the time. Malleus Fatuorum 16:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... a man named John, who was later implemented into Resident Evil 2 as gun shop owner Robert Kendo." Are you sure about "implemented into"? I'm most definitely not.
implemented --> incorporated (maybe a still better option though) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Maybe "included in ... as"?
  • "Costume changes and wounds inflicted by enemies were reflected in a change of the characters' polygonal models." Reads rather awkwardly: "change of the characters' models"? What about something like "Costume changes and wounds inflicted by enemies were reflected in changes to the characters' polygonal models"?
yeah, that's better too. done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In short, the content seems fine to me, but you need to recruit a good copyeditor. And after JimmBlackwing's outburst above that won't be me. I'm afraid that until the whole article is reworked I won't be supporting this nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see what a statement by an uninvolved party has to do with whether or not you copyedit the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I just hope my next nomination won't cause as much drama as this one... Either karma or bad luck. I'll ask on the project's talk page for a copyeditor, maybe someone will volunteer. Prime Blue (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another lookover later today and see what else I can massage prose-wise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, thank you. Prime Blue (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on prose and readability issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It is set in Raccoon City, a Midwestern mountain community" - midwest what? This is linked to midwest US later, but you shouldn't assume that the term is familiar to non-Americans especially
    • Re: Reworded.
  • "Depending on certain requirements" is quite vague and seems a bit awkward
    • Re: Reworded. Can't go too much into details because of WP:GAMEGUIDE.
  • "two months after the mansion incident" - I've never played this game, so I have absolutely no idea what this is referring to
    • Re: Reworded.
  • "for the purpose of masking the development of the new G-virus" - awkward phrasing
    • Re: Reworded.
  • "one such G-virus mutant" - does this refer to an infected human or a mutated version of the virus itself? If the former, should also make it clear that humans become bioweapons via mutation as opposed to simple infection
    • Re: Reworded. "Mutating" and "monster" should be enough connectives to make readers understand what this means.
  • I'm finding the storyline quite hard to follow. Is Birkin associated with Umbrella? Was Sherry infected/mutated? etc
    • Re: Provided additional information. Though again, the word limit makes it hard to explain everything in great detail (especially when another user thinks the plot section is too detailed already).
  • "Claire is reunited with Sherry and discovers that Birkin has already implanted her with an embryo" - "her" being Claire or Sherry?
    • Re: Reworded.
  • Citation-needed tag needs to be addressed, some citations in Reception especially should be bundled where feasible
    • Re: Original research addressed with revert. I don't think the citations in the reception section currently hurt the readability of the article to warrant otherwise unconnected groups of references, so I'll hold back on that until more users consider this a problem.
  • What's a "support partner"? What do you mean by "inexperienced"? What is "ported"? Article needs to be more accessible to non-gamers
    • Re: Explained "support partner" and "inexperienced". I don't think there's a simple, natural and non-gamer-friendly alternative to the word "port", so I wikified it.
  • Two sentences discussing "Real-world influences..." seem misplaced
    • Re: That paragraph mostly talks about character and environment designs, so putting those two sentences (the real-world influences being one aspect of the design process) somewhere else would be detrimental, I think.
  • "Though he was initially consulted on a trial basis, Okamoto was impressed with how easily Sugimura came up with solutions" - "he" being Okamoto or Sugimura? Check for similar issues
    • Re: Reworded.
  • WP:OVERLINK - PlayStation Network is linked twice in three sentences, common terms like piano need not be linked, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: Delinked some more general terms.

Withdraw: Obvious that it won't pass. Thanks to everyone who collaborated on making this article better, it's back to peer review for now. Prime Blue (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Resident_Evil_2/archive1&oldid=424628266"