Talk:Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anarchyte (talk · contribs) 02:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll do this. Ana r chyte  02:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Overall comments/Misc

 * Copyvio rating: 45.1%% chance of violation of this page.
 * This is fine as most of the violated contents are basic words ("Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes", "Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix", etc).


 * I suggest you install the duplicate link finder thing and remove some of the undue hyperlinks.

Lead

 * Marvel vs. Capcom 2 is the first game in the franchise to utilize 2.5D graphics; although the character artwork uses traditional 2D-animated sprites, the backgrounds and visual effects are rendered in 3D.
 * Could this be worded a little differently? Such as; "The character artwork uses traditional 2D-animated sprites, the backgrounds and visual effects are rendered in 3D. This made Marvel vs. Capcom 2 the first game in the franchise to feature 2.5D graphics".
 * You might wanna hyperlink "2.5D" as some people may not know what it is.

Gameplay

 * Assists come with a drawback; assist characters receive extra damage if stuck by the opponent.
 * Remove the "Assists come with a drawback;" section, it seems out of place and unnecessary.


 * Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes contains a roster of 56 playable characters.
 * The reference says it's 55 and an "alternate costume". You may want to change that, just personal preference.

Development

 * "The game was the first in the Marvel vs. Capcom series to combine hand-drawn two-dimensional sprites with three-dimensional backgrounds".
 * "The game was the first in the Marvel vs. Capcom series to combine hand-drawn two-dimensional sprites upon three-dimensional backgrounds" may be better.
 * I can't find this statement in the reference.
 * It's on the second page. MvC2 effectively combines hand-drawn two-dimensional sprites with cartoon-like three-dimensional backgrounds. Wani (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The 4th paragraph seems very reliant on one reference.

Release

 * Everything is fine here Face-smile.svg

Reception

 * I fixed the only minor error here.

Sequel

 * Everything is fine here Face-smile.svg

Overall review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: (Pass)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: (Pass)
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: (Pass)
 * Pass or Fail: (Pass)

This is very close to a good article. After these errors are fixed I'll have no problems with passing it. Ana r chyte  08:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have two additional comments. Source 2 is an unreliable source. MobyGames should not be used. You should also use the work field (|work=) for 1UP.com, Polygon and Eurogamer instead of the publisher field (|publisher=) as they are websites and should be italicized according to MOS:TITLES. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a quick verification, would it be "|work=Engadget|publisher=AOL" ? Ana r chyte  00:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * With MOS:TITLE, Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized, so, if Engadget is a website of similar style, it should be italicized. AdrianGamer (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it safe to pass the review now? has fixed all the issues I stated in the review. As for MobyGames, it's only being used for release dates, wouldn't it be fine to use? Ana r chyte   03:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * MobyGames features user-submitted content. There may be some inaccuracies. So, no, it should not be used, even just for release dates. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Drat...it's gonna be a nightmare trying to find articles verifying the earlier dates. Oh well. I'll start looking. Wani (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * IGN lists the release dates in the 'Game Details' sections on the sides of their reviews, such as here and here. Is that okay to use? Wani (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, these could be used. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've successfully replaced MobyGames with other sources (easier than I thought it'd be). Still need to replace the publishers with work fields. Wani (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Wani (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)