For example, the prominently-cited GamaSutra page makes the vague claims 'Today's FPS games are still based on styles that came from GoldenEye' and 'started the influx of console-based shooters we see nowadays'. I think that if the article is going to make big claims like 'one of the most influential ever', it would really need a couple of very specific examples of how GoldenEye's innovations fed back into the design of PC FPSs, but the cited sources don't support this. IMO influence is a very difficult thing to measure, and other than the points about the sniper rifle and stealth elements, the cited sources are pretty vague and don't really say exactly which aspects of it were influential.

AstroCog ( talk) 22:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC) One thing I'm concerned about is that the article currently emphasises how influential the game was. It's not too bad here, and I can give specific examples in the review, but you and the other editors might want to reread it with an eye toward making sure all the language is formal. One thing that does concern me is that some language occasionally seems too informal (a systematic problem among video game articles). I think it's a pretty good looking article.

Niwi3 ( talk) 20:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC) I compared versions from the last GA review to now and there has been significant change, much of it for the better. In any case, I'm going to ask Nick R and see if he has any more objections, just to make sure everything is good to go. The article seems basically done in my eyes and I agree it should be up for a GAR. AstroCog ( talk) 17:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Right, but those issues have already been adressed as far as I know. Quick question: do the article's main contributors agree that this should be up for GA review? I note that there was disagreement about this recently. I'll be reviewing this article today and tomorrow.

Goldeneye 007 mouse and keyboard