Talk:Mega Man Battle Network (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 15:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Status

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s).

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.	The wording "the internet (or Net)" (first paragraph of the Plot section) should be probably simplified to "the Net".  Done In the wording "as though they were physical locations" (same pararaph) the word "though" should be probably replaced with "if".  Done The word "avatar" should be wikilinked.  Done The wording "During the final confrontation with the WWW" (second paragraph of the Plot section) requires explanation: who was confronting WWW?  Done The wording "Lan's scientist father" (same paragraph) should be simplified to "Lan's father".  Done The sentence "Lan had a twin brother, Hub, who died at a young age." (same paragraph) feels disconnected from the text before and after it.  Done The phrase "Dr. Hikari was able to essentially transfer him into a computer program to become the NetNavi MegaMan" (same paragraph) is grammatically incorrect. Done The charecter "MegaMan" is referred to both as "MegaMan" and "MegaMan.EXE". The article should stick with one of these forms (probably the latter, as it seems to be correct).  Done One entry of "the grid" in sentences "The battlefield itself is a grid made up of 18 tiles. The grid is further divided" (first paragraph of Gameplay section) should be replaced.  Done The italicized part of the sentence "The grid is further divided into two groups of nine, one being space in which MegaMan may move and the other controlled by the enemy and in which MegaMan cannot usefully move." should be rephrased to explain usefulness of MegaMan.EXE's moves issue. Alternatively it can be trimmed.  Done I don't understand the wording "supportive actions such as healing or destroying movement tiles" (italics added) from the second paragraph of Gameplay section.  Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The works and publishers (eg. IGN) in references should be wikilinked when possible.  Done When authors are unknown, they shouldn't be replaced with placeholders like "stuff", etc.
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.	The works shouldn't be specified as publishers (per WP:CS1 § Work and publisher).  Done
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

More to follow.

Discussion

Please place your questions, comments and progress reports here. It seems my comment 1b2 was somehow misleading. The idea was that the "author", "first", "last", "developer" and similar fields per WP:CS1 § Work and publisher should not be filled if they duplicate the "publisher". Even more uncomfortable I feel about the fact that I wasn't supposed to require this (not checked per WP:GACR). Thus I dismiss this issue.

The article looks good to me now, but I would like to give it a fresh look tomorrow. Hope I'll be able to pass it right away.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)