Talk:Panzer Dragoon (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 13:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Representing the Sega Task Force of WikiProject Video games, I am more than honored to take up this review. I'll begin as soon as I can. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Definitely a good read for a Sega classic. There are in my opinion, however, some adjustments that need to be made to reach GA status.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   This article is formatted well for a video game article, but I do see some prose issues that could be cleaned up. Make sure to capitalize proper nouns, i.e. "European", not "european". Single-sentence paragraphs are also improper, and should be combined into other paragraphs; for example, the lead of the Reception section should be combined into the next paragraph below it. Keep short paragraphs together to prevent choppiness, and make sure to vary the way sentences and paragraphs start, to improve fluency (i.e. 2 sentences in a row should not start with "In 199X...", nor should 2 paragraphs.) Overall, the article could use a copyedit to help improve fluency and clean up the prose... after the other issues are fixed, I might be willing to complete this for you.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Reviewing the sources, there are a couple of issues. Let me start with the use of GameSpot as a source for games related to "Panzer Dragoon": if you read WP:VG/S, the guideline notes that Gamespot is not a reliable source for database information because it is user contributed, though deceptively so. I'd suggest replacing it with IGN, as IGN does not have this issue, or with Allgame. Upon review, you should be okay with the GameSpot article by Ricardo Torres since he was a staff member and that is one of the conditional acceptable uses of GameSpot as a reliable source. GameFAQs is also not considered a reliable source per the same policy, and cannot be used in a GA (in fact, GameFAQs is prohibited entirely from any use on Wikipedia because it's entirely user-created content with no fact-checking). The last sentence of the Gameplay section has no citation, which could indicate WP:OR, but everything else looks good. Make sure, though, that your citations are consistent and use the same spelling and capitalization, as well as the proper capitalization (i.e. "GamePro" vs. "Gamepro", the first is the correct capitalization), and that any citations are as complete as possible, such as needing volume and issue numbers on the Retro Gamer source if you can find it. Lastly, don't cite a reference to "Sleeve of Japanese release". Be specific and think of the reader: some readers may not understand what you mean by that unless you're specific.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Pretty broad and focused for a Sega Saturn game, where one would think coverage would be difficult to find. Not too much focus on Plot, which is good because it means it's not a fancrufty article. Well done.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   From reading source 27, where does the comment on the sales not being high which could be explained by the PlayStation come from? I can't find it in that source, and it might be slightly POV-ish to say that it did not sell well because of its system without something to concretely back it up. Other than that, article is neutral as I read it and covers all facets well.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Looks to be quite stable. No edit wars in progress.

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):

   Check your non-free use rationales; especially for the cover art, it reads somewhat weak and the "n.a." fields need to explain in each case why a non-free image is being used. State the obvious here even if it is obvious to us, to be sure no one can question it. For example, the screenshot could not be replaced with a free equivalent because no free equivalent exists, nor can it exist because the work being described is a copyrighted work and all screenshots of it are copyrighted.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm going to place the article on hold. There's some touch-up that needs to be done here, but I don't think you're too far off.

Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 15:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review ! It's my first attempt at "GA-ing" an article and I expected there would be some issues. I'm going to work on it right now, I can probably get it done by tomorrow.

• As for prose issues, I think I can deal with some like paragraphs, sentence starts, etc. However I'm not a native English speaker and I may need help to improve overall fluency. I may not be able to spot certain non-idiomatic sentences right away...
• As for sources, I think I can easily find alternatives for Gamefaqs and the Gamespot database. Last sentence in Gamplay section shouldn't be too hard to source. I've found the Retro Gamer issue number, however I don't know if I can access the paper publication for page number and author. Also I didn't add the ref to EGM 1996 Buyer's Guide myself, and I couldn't find a page number since I can't access this particular issue. I didn't add the "Japanese sleeve" ref either...is it necessarily at all ?
• For the POV issue, the low but substancial enough sales are referenced in source 22, and for the parenthesized comment on the Saturn, I used source 27 (1up), right at the beginning: "YF: Panzer Dragoon wasn't accepted that much in Japan, but that's maybe because it was on Saturn." If you consider that is an issue of WP:SYNTH, or not clear enough for inclusion, I'll remove that parenthesized comment.
• For the cover art, I wasn't the one who uploaded it and I just forgot to check its rationale ^^ I'll work on that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks much better so far. Reference issues have been tidied up, and I removed the citation for the Japanese name because really a citation for a translation in Japan has never been required even in FA-class video game articles and since it's cited to the cover art, it's simply a little bizarre. I'm glad to see the non-free rationales have also been tightened up; this will prevent copyright questions from rising up in the future. The only thing I see left to be done is a thorough copyedit. I'll need some time to complete this, but as I do understand you're not a native English speaker and the odds of finding another copyeditor are scarce, I'll be glad to copyedit this article. Once I do, I think setting GA status shouldn't be a problem. Well done, your first GA is just within reach. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 12:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ! I'll try to copyedit as much as I can, but your help as an en-User will be very welcome. :) Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sorry for the delay; my job is quite abrasive and takes me out of the loop for days at a time. In any circumstance, the article could still use more copyediting, but I've given it a pretty thorough start, and I'd say we're clearly at GA status now. Well done! Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 15:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the the status, and the copyedit ! I'll be working on other VG articles now, including the rest of the Panzer Dragoon games and other Sega titles !Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)