Talk:Dragon Quest II/GA2

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

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 16:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Love me some Dragon Quest. Comments to follow. Indrian (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

 * ✅"now known as Square Enix" - Square Enix Co., LTD. was created through a merger of Square Co., LTD. and Enix Corporation. It was transformed into a holding company in 2008, and the current Square Enix Co., LTD. was formed at that time as the Japanese subsidiary of the holding company.  That's a lot of corporate gobbledygook, but the point is that saying Enix is now known as Square Enix would be incorrect.  The merged company took over the operations of the original companies.
 * ✅"Enix's U.S. subsidiary developed the American version of Dragon Quest II" - Enix of America published the game and may have even had a hand in the localization, but it did not "develop" the American version, the team in Japan did.
 * ✅"Later, the game was remade for the Super Famicom and the Game Boy Color with Dragon Warrior as Dragon Quest I & II." - Mixed use of "Dragon Warrior" and "Dragon Quest." Also it feels like a verb is missing; the sentence does not really convey properly that both DQI and DQII were remade and then published together on the same cartridge.
 * ✅The lead contains nothing about the development of the game, so it does not "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" as required by WP:LEAD.

Gameplay

 * ✅"instead of beginning the game with an entire party like in previous computer RPGs" - Probably best to avoid absolutes, as I am sure there are exceptions. Should probably read something like "as was common in previous computer RPGs."
 * ✅"It also allows for the deletion and moving of saved games. This was an upgrade from the Japanese version, which utilized a password system to restore progress." - Awkwardly worded, especially since this section is primarily about the Japanese original, not the American version. I would probably kill the second sentence and change the first to read "In the American version, which incorporated a battery for saved games rather than the password system of the original, it also allows for the deletion and moving of saved games."
 * ✅"Unlike Final Fantasy released that same year, which only allowed the player to dock the ship at ports" - I don't think a comparison to Final Fantasy is useful here.

Plot

 * ✅The entire "Setting" subsection appears extraneous. The first paragraph is about game mechanics, not setting, and the Alefgard stuff is trivia that could potentially be incorporated somewhere else in the article, but does not warrant its own section.
 * ✅The character section also seems out of place. The descriptions of the characters focus on their abilities and should therefore probably be part of the gameplay section, while the Hargon info is already completely covered in the story section.  I would get rid of all the subsections here and consolidate under the "plot" heading.

Development

 * ✅And so we come to the largest deficiency in the article. This section is really thin.  Fortunately, there is a great source to fix this.  Let me introduce you to Shmuplations, a great resource where a Japanese language expert translates interviews from Japanese game books and magazines.  For this article, be sure to consult this interview, which provides some juicy development details.
 * Heartfelt thanks to the anonymous Japanese speaker that completely revamped the development section. Indrian (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

And that's it for now. There is some good material in this article, but it will honestly take a bit of work to bring it up to GA status, particularly in regards to the development section. That said, I see no reason why GA status should be out of reach, so I will put this nomination while my concerns are addressed. Indrian (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok User:Indrian I did the corrections, but I'm stumped about this Shmup interview; how do I cite it? Whose the author, the date, the publication, even the original title? And if I cite the Schmup website, are they an WP:RS? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see how that's a bit tricky. Shmuplations is fine on reliability; the guy is a professional Japanese translator, so he knows the language well enough to trust his accuracy.  The interviews themselves are drawn from reliable sources; he just renders them into English.  Satoru Iwata became an FA with a translation from Shmuplations.  How to cite is more difficult.  The Iwata article cited to the original source of the interview, but in this case, the original source is unknown.  I would be okay with a cite directly to Shmuplations, but this area of Wikipedia policy is outside my expertise.  We may need to get a few more opinions.  I do feel it's important to figure this out, for I am not sure I can pass this article in good conscience when I know there are major omissions that could be filled by existing sources.  The rest of the article is very good; it's just this section that is a bit thin. Indrian (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's understandable, and the translations excellent... What to do...Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in. There's a thread about Shmuplations on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources right now... saw that you were discussing the site's reliability, and thought you might want to participate in the thread.--IDVtalk 04:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That shmuplations translation is from Famitsu issue 14.--124.119.144.82 (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And this amazing person just came out of nowhere with just the information we needed! Thanks whoever you are! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the development section is lovely now and most of my concerns have been met. There is still one outstanding issue: the lead needs to briefly summarize the development section.  Once that is done, I think we will be good to go.
 * Ok, lead created, should be set to get a Green Plus sign! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I polished the language a bit more, and I now feel the article meets the GA criteria. Well done! Indrian (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's amazing how much better the article is now, that's what a good article nomination should do, and boy did it do that! And thanks to our mysterious user who made this all possible! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)