Talk:Bravoman/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: OmegaFallon (talk · contribs) 21:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Staring a review of Bravoman, will update with details shortly. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Section-by-section comments

Lead

• Fine as is. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Gameplay

• "Posing" is an odd verb choice. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• "Bravoman's sort-of partner Lottery Man" is oddly phrased as well. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• "A drink that grants temporarily invincibility" -> "A drink that temporarily grants invincibility". Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• "Other bosses include the cyborg ninja Waya-Hime, a mechanical version of the king of Atlantis, and Pistol Daimyo, a shogun with a cannon attached to his head" which of these phrases separated by commas are individual bosses and which are continuations or descriptions is unclear. Consider using semicolons. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• "and plentiful" is oddly phrased. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Plot

• Fine as is. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Development and release

• Fine as is. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Reception

• "In its initial release in Japan, Bravoman was praised", "but disliked its difficulty for being overly high and frustrating at times", "but criticized the difficulty for being too high and the new levels for sometimes being frustrating or overly long", and "interesting in its strangeness" could use some rephrasing. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Legacy

• Fine as is. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall review

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Some minor problems, but easily fixed. You can use the  Done tag to indicate when a concern has been met. Feel free to shoot me a message when you believe the article is ready for reconsideration.

@OmegaFallon: Thanks for reviewing this. All issues have been addressed. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 22:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems good to me! The article passes. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)