Okay, the time has arrived. Before starting the review, I'd like to say that I've been reading past reviews trying to improve my reviewing and writing skills and I noticed I used to make many typo mistakes while writing :S I guess I have improved that flaw in my writing (apart from improving my prose) and that will be a net benefit from now on. So, no more typos unless the word is pretty researched and difficult to spell. Cheers! Well, side note apart, review goes now :P — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha no problem. --JDC808♫ 18:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments
Publication history
"The series was announced". Well, this may be more of a general note than an individual issue. From what I understand, series is plural; speciffically, a plural version of it, because it encompasses a group of things. As a result, I may say "the series were announced" but, as I am not quite sure of such usage, I may use another wording.
It is confusing because "series" is both singular and plural. I looked into this and what I found is that you use either "was" or "were" based on the context of the sentence. Since it's talking about one series, "was" is the correct word in this case. --JDC808♫ 18:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The series was announced at the 2009 Comic-Con International and was to debut in October of that year, but was delayed to coincide with the launch of God of War III." This wording is confusing. I'd recommend using something like this: "Announced at the Comic-Con International convention of 2009, the series was scheduled to debut in October of that year but were eventually delayed to coincide with the launch of God of War III." I highlighted was and were because i am not completetely sure which goes where, but its reads fine for me.
Same thing for "was" and "were" but I like this rewording. --JDC808♫ 18:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Vice President of Product Marketing for SCEA stated 'we are...'" → "Vice President of Product Marketing at SCEA stated: 'we are...'"
Fixed. --JDC808♫ 18:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In an interview with IGN, the series writer, Marv Wolfman, stated that when he heard rumor of the series..." Okay: If he's the writer, then stating that he "heard rumor of the series..." is not correct. As I suppose (and I guess I'm right) that we are talking about the comic series, then you may say "Series' writer Marv Wolfman, in an interview with IGN, stated that when he first heard rumours of a comic adaptation, he 'put..." If you noticed, I removed the double usage of comma that looked kind of awkward.
Okay, re-reading, I reached the conclusion that Wolfman is not the writer of the video game series but of the comic series, right? I remember seeing other names when I reviewed the video games for GA status.
Correct. Wolfman is just the comic series' writer. --JDC808♫ 18:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He "put [in his] name right away and kept pushing" as God of War is one of his favorite video games". I don't exactly get what he meant by saying that he "kept pushing". I guess that you are making reference to "pushing" for the rumours to be true, but that's not explained in the text.
He kept pushing so he would be picked to be the comic series writer. I'll try to clarify. Clarified. --JDC808♫ 18:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He was, however, sent copies of the scripts for all the games to ensure his work was as accurate as possible." "He was, however, sent" is kind of not well-written. The previous sentence said that he wanted to do the comics because he loved the series so much. Then you may add that "Notwithstanding, he received copies of the scripts of all the entries in the video game series to ensure his work was as accurate as possible."
Okay. --JDC808♫ 18:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Wolfman also stated that he worked very closely with Sony Santa Monica—the developer of the video games—and he used the comic to tie in directly to the story they created." The "also" is not needed. Additionally, you may like to reword a bit so that it fits more into the truth. What I mean is that "he used the comic to tie in directly to the story they created" is not completely correct. I think it goes the other way (I will merge it with the following sentence from the text to make my example clearer): "Wolfman stated that he worked very closely with Sony Santa Monica—the developer of the video games—to achieve and tie in the comic directly into the story they created. Santa Monica ensured, by revealing new facts about Kratos' past, that mythology on the comics was consistent to the one featured in the video games."
Okay. --JDC808♫ 18:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Sony and DC" → "Sony and DC [Comics]" or "Sony and DC [sic]" mainly because althoug I know it is DC Comics, it won't be that obvious for many people XD
Fixed. Made it "Sony and DC [Comics]". --JDC808♫ 16:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The series was released on a bi-monthly schedule, with a new issue releasing every two months from March 2010 until January 2011. In March 2011, the series was collected into a trade paperback: God of War (144 pages, March 2011, ISBN1-4012-2972-7)." → "The series was released on a bi-monthly schedule, with a new issue releasing every two months from March 2010 until January 2011. In March 2011, the series was collected into a trade paperback.<ref>{{cite book|title=God of War|url=http://books.google.co.ve/books?id=IbehSgAACAAJ|isbn=1-4012-2972-7|date=22 March 2011|publisher=DC Comics|author=Marv Wolfman|pages=144|accessdate=16 October 2012}}</ref>"
Unsure here because that source doesn't cover the collected edition. It only lists the six comics (and release dates) separately. --JDC808♫ 16:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, the point was to make "God of War (144 pages, March 2011, ISBN1-4012-2972-7)." as a citation. And actually, I used the ISBN to find the information I posted XD
Oh okay. I guess I should have clearly read the that ref lol. I only assumed that because I didn't see the ref (or a ref number) after "January 2011" in the quoted text.
References
Only ref #6 is worrysome. There you have a mixture of "." and ",". "Wolfman, Marv (w), Sorrentino, Andrea (a), Temofonte, Saida (let), Abernathy, Ben (ed). God of War #1: [1]/"And having so recently defeated Ares to become the God of War, Kratos believed his tortured nightmares would soon come to an end." (March 2010), WildStorm". After Wildstorm, a full stop is missing, as well as before the word. Also, what does exactly mean "[1]/"?
That's just how {{cite comic}} formats it (The mixture of the commas and the periods is because the first commas are for the names of the writer, artist, letterer, and editor, then the periods follow correctly and this format doesn't put a full stop after the publisher). As for the "[1]/". The "1" is the page number (for some reason it was bracketed), the "/" is supposed to the panel on the page. There wasn't a spot in the cite comic format to put a quote, so I stuck the quote in the panel spot, and that's how it appears in the ref. Should I just remove the quote? --JDC808♫ 23:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed the quote and just put the page number and panel number. I've also added more sources from the comics. --JDC808♫ 23:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Synopsis
"Set after Kratos' defeat of the God of War Ares,[6] Kratos," → "Set after Kratos' defeat of the God of War Ares,[6] he,"
"on the rank of Captain to Kratos when he sacrifices himself to save Kratos." → "on the rank of Captain to Kratos when he sacrifices himself to save him."
Fixed.
I don't mean to butt in here, but I disagree with both of those changes, as they increase the ambiguity. The first one is almost intelligible because we have to assume Kratos is the new God of War. But there is another problem, which is that the sentence has a dangling modifier in the dependent clause at the beginning of the sentence. I'd suggest changing it to "The story is set after Kratos' defeat of the former God of War Ares.[25] Kratos, as the new God of War...".
Changed. --JDC808♫ 20:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second one doesn't work in its current form at all. Read the entire sentence: "Nikos eventually passes on the rank of Captain to Kratos when he sacrifices himself to save him." We don't know who sacrificed whom for whom, at all. It could be read that Kratos sacrificed himself. I suggest changing that one back to the way it was, or even "Nikos eventually passes on the rank of Captain to Kratos when Nikos sacrifices himself to save Kratos." —Torchiesttalkedits 17:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendations by torchiest fix the issues better. I was also confused into who saved who. Thanks Torchiest. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed back. --JDC808♫ 20:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
The first paragraph is well done, but the second and the third are kind of unorganized. I can read a repetitiveness of some words, and the ideas are there but not well structured, so it can be confusing to catch them all while reading. I'd suggest to put all the criticism about the cover in a different paragraph and re-structure the ones talking about the muddy artwork.
Hm, okay. Do you have any other suggestions on how to restructure them? I tried to make the first paragraph about the writing and story, and the second about the artwork.
Well, it reads well right now, but still some minor issues have to be fixed, I will write them here as I see them so that you can easily address them all :)
"but interior art was regarded as "muddy" and "detracts from the experience" of reading a comic." I feel a mixture of tenses here.
I believe that's from Bluerim's version. Mine says "but also regarded the interior art as "muddy," claiming it "detracts from the experience" of reading a comic;" --JDC808♫ 20:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"An IGN reviewer rated the series a "C+". This is later repeated on paragraph two: "IGN rated the series a C+".
That's because User:Bluerim changed it and left that mistake. I've changed it back. --JDC808♫ 20:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The reviewer also stated he could imagine Terrence C. Carson—voice actor for Kratos in the video games—voicing the lines of Kratos." Same as above; this is repeated in paragraph two.
Same. --JDC808♫ 20:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is the section now? --JDC808♫ 23:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on the synopsis section: I rewrote the setting section, but I could see merging the characters section into it, as they are part of the setting, and maybe trimming down a little, such as by cutting "Several other minor characters appear in the past, including Captain Nikos,[21] Kratos' wife, Lysandra,[22] and daughter, Calliope,[23] and the King of Sparta.[24]" The characters section is a little bit list-like; another option would be to give a few more details about how the characters interact with Kratos, such as the way you did with "the Chaos Giant, Gyges, who is also in need of the Ambrosia.[15]" Otherwise it's not super compelling reading. I'd definitely say having separate setting and plot sections at least is a good idea for these types of articles, just as is done in video game articles and other media articles. —Torchiesttalkedits 02:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see. More rewrites are necessary as the user means well but has gone overboard and it is a tad fannish. One of the dangers of being too involved and hence outside comment. Bluerim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You (Bluerim) come back after a near month long break and kinda personal attack me about going overboard, a tad fannish, and being too involved? I mean, what the heck? If it wasn't for all the contributions I've made over the past 1-2 months to this article, it would probably still be like this. --JDC808♫ 05:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, when someone edits is neither here nor there. Please remember that. What? And yes, you mean well but your work does need tailoring by others less involved. Not perfect yet, agreed? That's why others are commenting. That's why I nominated it for GAN; to fix problems and bring this up to standard. Yours will be one of the contributions that help refine these articles. Two other editors are also making great additions in addition to yourself and myself. We'll get there. Bluerim (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments in bold. --JDC808♫ 04:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the nominator here is JDC not Bluerim; so I may ask Bluerim that if he is attemtping to help, do not challenge JDC's edits because he is the major contributor to the article and the stability of the article may be compromised and thus, as a result, criteria 5 will be failed. — ΛΧΣ21™ 11:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about the reception section. Why should the IGN review be considered a reliable source? It looks like it's a user account's blog, not an official part of the website. —Torchiesttalkedits 13:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, I have checked the site and that review is not made by a staff member of IGN but by a registered user of the site. Therefore, it is deemed unreliable. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll try to find a replacement. --JDC808♫ 04:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked part of the lead and overhauled the Setting section as it was rather unclear and contained both repetition and extraneous material. Much easier read now and should help. Bluerim (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, when both of you are done tweaking the article please let me know. Otherwise, I will have to read the text 100 times... — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no further tweaks (other than replacing the IGN review), unless Bluerim makes any that I disagree with. --JDC808♫ 04:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled the IGN review. --JDC808♫ 21:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
· 
· 
· 
