Talk:Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kiyoshiendo (talk · contribs) 01:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I looked through the article for general criteria issues. I didn't find any, but I did find a few issues. Here are all my comments:

• General prose is mechanically legible. It's not engaging, as the sentences are choppy and are often cut short. It needs better flow, like a featured article (such as Bastion (video game)).
• The lead is summarised nicely. It's a little long, but it's as long as it needs to be, especially considering the amount of ports it has received.
• The plot is accurate from what I remember, though it needs some more citations. It's okay for a good article, but for a featured it will need some proof from the game itself for verifiability.
• The development section is super long. It should be more summary, maintaining more or less the same information without having two browser screens worth of text. Same for the localisation.
• The release section could use a bulleted list or a table to organise the release dates. The text is obtuse as it stands. Same for the sales and legacy section.
• Reception should summarise each element of the game (gameplay, writing, etc.) without putting each of the reviews into random order.
• The references are notable and reliable as far as I can tell, though they need to follow a more orderly citation (though I don't care about that myself).
• Images are well-used and don't violate any copyrights.

So in sum, this article does meet all of the Good Article critera, but it's a far cry from being Featured. Congratulations on your promotion, and if you help out with all the Phoenix Wright games, you may have a Good Topic. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kiyoshiendo: Thank you for the review. Yeah, I know it's far from FA - I'll start to improve the article in accordance with your suggestions later today. I wonder what you mean by though they need to follow a more orderly citation, though. I'd like to fix it, but I don't actually know what it means. Cheers.--IDV^talk 02:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that? Not all of the citations have publishers and authors. This could be because they aren't applicable, but it's something to consider. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's not applicable in all cases (Anime News Network usually doesn't say who the author is, for instance), but yeah, I've probably missed some instances. I'll take a look at it. Oh, and I forgot to reply to that, but yes, I do intend to go through all Ace Attorney articles. Might be a problem with Dai Gyakuten Saiban, since I'm not good enough at Japanese to play it, and don't have a JP region 3DS, but I'll save that one for last and hope that it gets localized before I get to it.--IDV^talk 02:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)