Talk:P.N.03/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hammerbrodude (talk · contribs) 06:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Well, it should be clear why I'm here tonight. A request to promote P.N.03 was made a couple days ago, and I've opted to personally review this article.[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Introduction seems fine. I'll do the rest momentarily.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
All issues remedied as of 22:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I really like the level of detail in the development and reception sections; the article definitely exceeds the GA guidelines for completeness.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No obvious issues regarding neutrality.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
I see no reason to believe this article is not stable at this time.
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):
All issues remedied as of 22:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

...I intended to do a bit more work tonight, but I'm going to have to temporarily pause the review as I seem to be falling asleep, and it sure would be a shame if I accidentally passed everything in this delirium. Perhaps take a moment to address the excruciatingly tiny issues mentioned below? I'll return to this tomorrow, as soon as I get a chance. Hammerbrodude (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quirks

1: Well-Written

1a: "The player controls Vanessa via a third-person perspective and uses a green reticle to target enemies. Capcom aimed to portray a white delicate game world in contrast to its previous games. Shown is Vanessa using the Harrier energy drive against the targeted enemy."

This sentence is a little odd. Rephrase it slightly, perhaps:

"In P.N.03, Capcom aimed to create a white, delicate game world to contrast its other works. The player controls Vanessa from a third-person perspective, and uses a green reticule to target enemies. Shown here is Vanessa, using the Harrier energy drive against a targeted enemy."

Updated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

What are "energy drives", exactly? The powerful attacks listed in the next sentence? A game term for the energy beams in the previous sentence? This could use a bit of clarification. Likewise, what are "trial missions"?

"Defeated enemies may drop items that replenish barrier and energy and trigger a combo timer that multiplies point earnings as enemies are destroyed consecutively."

Reword this sentence, and perhaps throw a couple internal links into it. It's a little confusing.

"Vanessa encounters a digital projection of the client who also looks identical to her."

This (part of a) sentence just sounds a bit odd when read aloud. I'm probably sounding increasingly petty, but perhaps exchange it for something to the effect of: "Vanessa encounters a digital projection of the client, who appears identical to herself."

Possibly wikify the following: "intellectual property", "acrobatics", "shoot-em-up, "staccato"

"Hiroyuki Kobayashi summarized the development"

Of what? The Capcom Five, or P.N.03?

These are the last couple issues, and I'm prepared to pass the article as soon as they're addressed.

I believe the above list has been addressed. I didn't wikilink acrobatics though, because I believe that it is a common enough term that it is unneeded and would be overlinking.

I didn't find them petty at all, and think the article is more clear now (the primary contributors to the article's current form have never played the game before, so we're glad to have the feedback). Let us know if there are any other issues. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I haven't played the game either, but after reading the article, I am more than satisfied with my knowledge of the game at this point. It's been a pleasure reviewing this article, and I thank you and all of those who improved this article for their contributions to Wikipedia. Article 1 passed; Good Article Judgment: Pass.

2: Citation

2b: One archived link does not seem to work; the one for Biglobe. May be a decent idea to find some other means of sourcing this.

I did not find a substitute source in my research. Do you recommend removal? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I suppose if no other sources exist, there's not much else that can be done. Article 2 passed. Hammerbrodude (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

6: Illustration

6a: It may be a good idea to reduce the size of "PN03gun.jpg" somewhat.

I tagged it with {{Non-free reduce}} a week ago and am waiting for DASHBOT or some other image bot to make its rounds. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Alright, figuring it will eventually happen automatically: Article 6 passed. Hammerbrodude (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judgment

This article has passed review against the Good Article criteria, and I'll list it momentarily. Hammerbrodude (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]