Talk:Darius Gaiden/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Le Panini (talk · contribs) 13:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You know what? I'll do it. I've been watching the GA nomination page and seeing articles picked out of order. I'll probably finish sometime soon.


 * The six good article criteria


 * Well written:
 * Just some sections that I believe need clarification. I'll suggest them down below. If you follow a style of writing and prefer yours better, tell me when responding, and I'll take a better look at it. Symbol support vote.svg
 * Verifiable with no original research:
 * Looks good, this section passes. Symbol support vote.svg
 * Broad in its coverage:
 * This section looks good, so it passes. Symbol support vote.svg
 * Neutral:
 * Looks fine, this section passes. Symbol support vote.svg
 * Stable:
 * Stable environment, this section passes. Symbol support vote.svg
 * Illustrated:
 * Image of cover art and gameplay, so this section passes. Symbol support vote.svg


 * Infobox
 * I'd suggest a caption for the box art, explaining what the image is displaying. Are either of the ships the Silver Hawk? If so, what's the other one?
 * I don't really like making extensive image captions in infoboxes, as it just clutters the text. The alt text is probably a better way to have that kind of info, which I did. For the actual caption, I just wrote that it's the promotional flyer.
 * That's fine.
 * The table claims the game is multiplayer, but is not mentioned elsewhere. There should be a brief mention in gameplay.
 * Done.


 * Lead Section
 * This section should explain the exact release dates in North America and Japan, like the infobox.
 * I don't think that's needed. That's what the infobox is for. Besides, the Japanese and American release are both the same year and only two months apart, so it seems unnecessary.
 * Your choice, then. If you want to add it, I'd suggest "The game released in Japan in September 1994, followed by a North American release two months later in November."
 * Additionally, the sentence "It was followed by G-Darius in 1997" Should be moved to the first paragraph.


 * Gampelay
 * I don't think "and is part of the Darius series" is necessary in the gameplay section.
 * Removed.
 * "Levels conclude with a boss that must be defeated by destroying its weak spot." Maybe an example here? Your decision.
 * Not real sure what to do here. Are you referring to what kind of weakpoint? I clarified in the text that the weakpoints could be either the head or the mouth of the boss.
 * I was suggesting if the bosses had different ways of defeating them. This seems to not be the case, so this change is fine.
 * As mentioned above, there should be an explanation for mulitplayer, with citation.
 * At least for shooters, it's hard to talk about the multiplayer aspect as I can never find a proper place to put it without it feeling like it's just sandwiched between unrelated facts.
 * It can just have its own 1-2 sentences at the bottom of gameplay. Super Mario Bros. 35 explains its second gamemode wit only two sentences.
 * I tossed in something about the 2P option in the first paragraph.


 * Development
 * What do you mean by "seamless screen"? Could there more description here or perhaps a wikilink?
 * The original Darius (and Darius II) used three different monitors to display the game. There are mirrors inside the arcade cabinet that reflect those screens to create the illusion of one long, seamless screen. I didn't want to go into that much detail about it since that info is already covered extensively in the Darius page, so I summarized it as best as I could.
 * According to WP:ONEDOWN, things that need clarification should be explained as if the reader has no knowledge about the subject. Take Super Mario Bros. 35 for example; the article has to go into detail about the original game, and takes a couple of paragraphs to do so. You don't necessarily need to summarize if it will help the reader better understand how the game works.
 * I don't see why an entire paragraph is necessary to explain something that isn't even part of the game. The Darius article doesn't even do that, it summarized the whole thing in one sentence. I tried summarizing it again.
 * That works well.
 * "formidable opponents King Fossil and Vermilion Coronatus". I suggest a "such as" here.
 * Done.


 * Music
 * I don't get why house band is in quotations. It's a real thing, and should rather be wikilinked.
 * Didn't know that. Linked.
 * "toying with the concept of illusions and scenarios that never actually happened." I think this sentence needs clarification, its rather confusing to me.
 * The music section was just hard for me to write about, since I didn't even understand it. I cut out that sentence as I didn't really know how to properly summarize what he was saying about that.
 * Yeah, this guy is just one of those people that has a "philosophy" about music. This section looks good now.
 * "The band's sound engineer, Katsuhisa Ishikawa, designed the game's sound effects." I'd suggest moving this sentence up to the development section.
 * Moved. You're right, it does look better there.


 * Release
 * "In promotional material, Taito advertised the game's new mechanics and more serious tone." How? In what way?
 * The flyer in the source advertises the mechanics and seriousness. Not really sure how I could be more specific.
 * I'd suggest changing the sentence to "in the promotional flyer".


 * Reception
 * All references in the table should have a mention in the reception section, such as AllGame.
 * The Allgame reviews were added by another user. They don't really provide any other kind of commentary to the games than what is already there, so I just removed them entirely.
 * Additionally, the third paragraph lacks a couple of wikilinks, such as Gamefan. All of these sources should be wikilinked.
 * Not really sure why that's necessary. All of those publications are linked in the previous two paragraphs, so they don't need to be linked again.
 * Yeah, I'm now using highlight duplicate links tool, and didn't look good enough before without it. Taito is linked in the development section, and then again in music, so remove the second one.
 * Retrospective Feedback
 * This entire section is about Rupert Higham's review of the game. I'd suggest shortening it, or merging it with the above section, but that's optional.
 * What do you mean? The paragraph isn't all from Higham, as it also has commentary from Hardcore Gaming 101's Kurt Kalata as well. Those are really the only retrospective reviews for this I could find — the rest was just some brief commentary from the game's re-releases, and I didn't feel it was necessary to include.
 * Wait, what- I think I did some drug when looking at this section. All good here.

A quote from KGRAMR:
 * Verdict

"This is almost GA-status, which is pretty damn impressive considering how short it took to almost remake the whole page except the head..."

Well done! This article really has no problems, apart from some writing changes. As such, I'm putting the article on hold for a brief period to make changes, or to respond back about my suggestions. Sorry you all (by all, I mean the top contributors) had to wait so long! Leave a message on my talk page when you're ready for a re-review. You can challenge any of my suggestions if you'd like, as I assume you all have your own manual of style when it comes to writing. Le Panini Talk 14:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Left some comments. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 01:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so close, responded to your comments. Le Panini  Talk 01:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That should be the rest of it. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 20:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good now, I'll pass it! You should shoot for a DYK now, but only if you want to. Le Panini  Talk 21:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)