Talk:Wild Guns/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 02:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I'm reviewing this article for Good Article status. Comments forthcoming! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	INTRO - Should say when the game was released on virtual console to give a sense of context, how long after original release. wikilink "cooperative mode" not enough people even know what it is! :) "featuring original gameplay" - original, like this game? Or original like brand new gameplay? Will this new game have the same settings, characters or gameplay? This is unclear. The concept drawing images caption is a complete sentence, so it should end with a period. GAMEPLAY - Who says "Clint doesn't need assistance" - the narrator? Clint? Wikilink vendetta The D pad sentence could easily be added to the sentence before it. DEVELOPMENT - Who subcontracted them for the project? Not in source, reworded it's a support staff instead of substaff. 32 bit hardware - such as? May be good to mention which machine was considered compared to the super Nintendo . a viable concept" perhaps "as were the characters" need more context on what a "Cobra manga" is. "by the film RoboCop 3." That way you don't need the 1993. see if we can wikilink Roland W-30 keyboard "side by side: this, however, proved to be cumbersome..." This makes those sentence linked, which they should be. RECEPTION - do we know why the game was delayed? Not in source, unknown "as the games strongest points" did the reviewers compare it positively or negatively to the neo geo game? Just said it was similar
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article could easily do a three paragraph lead. Legacy should probably be a subsection of Reception since its small.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All the references are there, and they all resolve correctly according to the check links tool. Many authors and publishers are missing and need to be added to their references. Also, some website references are missing accessdates and other references are missing dates. And questions; are the Allgame overview, STG Gameside, Gamesetwatch, and www.ne.jp reliable sources? All Game and GameSetWatch are reliable sources according to the VG sources page. STG Gameside is a published work in Japan so I presumed it is reliable. The ne.jp page is an interview with the developer which I think was originally from a publication. It's hard to source directly because the info I got is from Shmuplations which does translations of old dev interviews in Japanese publication archives. I can look into it more if this presents an issue, but I don't doubt its legitimacy. The North America release appears to lack an official release date, just a year and month. I could not find a single date
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I did spot checks on a few references, and everything mentioned in the article is backed up by the source.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Is all of the last paragraph in the Development section from the source at the end of it? Otherwise lots of in-line citations. Yes all in the same source
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Ran the copyright violation checker, zero detectable levels of violation.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article stays on target and does not stray.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Everything is summarized nicely.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias is shown in the article toward the subject matter.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Very stable, the only activity is the nominators improvements.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The first and third images need to have their tags fixed since they are still not marked as to whether they have fair use rationales or not (in both cases the answer is clearly yes. The first images rationale also seems to say "na" to questions that could be answered as to why there cannot be any free use images swapped. I think these are all set
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images are necessary and well captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article looks very good, just needs a bunch of pros tweaking as far as I can see. I'll put it on hold for seven days, and thank you so much for your patience while I've been on vacation! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the message. I'll see about getting to some of this stuff this weekend. But I'll be going on vacation in less than a week. So it may not be until after the 4th that I can really start to look at it. Just an FYI. TarkusAB 20:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know @TarkusAB:, I was on vacation myself for a bit I wanted to give you a high-quality review. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Judgesurreal777:, I am back from break. I will get to fixing this article and finishing the review of SaGa Frontier 2 soon. I have some other stuff to work on as well, but I will not forget about these two things. May be the weekend before I get to it. Thanks for your patience. TarkusAB 01:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a few more @TarkusAB:! Almost a GA. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

OK I think that is everything @Judgesurreal777:, again, thanks for your patience on this one. TarkusAB 13:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations! Everything looks good, great job getting the all of the things I had raised fixed. No worries, I am very patient :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)