Talk:Mega Man (1987 video game)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Guyinblack25 talk 15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is in good shape aside from one issue I think would confuse the layman. The lead and development sections refer to the Famicom and NES in a way that implies that they are two different systems, when really they are just two different regional names for the same system. I would stick to the NES name and refer to the regional markets instead. For example, "Famicom home console market" → "Japanese home console market". I think this will better convey that the game was originally designed for a single system.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Things look good here.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Does a good job of covering the major aspects in sufficient detail.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Reads neutral to me
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Articles looks to be stable with no major changes occurring.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The FURs for File:NES Mega Man.png File:MegaManPoweredUp.jpg need some beefing up similar to File:MegamanBox.jpg. Is there a better image to use in place of the Powered Up cover? Perhaps a screenshot that shows the chibi-design, widescreen dimensions, and either a cutscene or new boss? Not essential, but something to think about. Another minor issue, the alt text for File:Keiji Inafune.jpg does not describe the image. Something along the lines of "a Japanese man in a black coat" or something similar.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article is in very good shape, but I'm putting it on hold until the prose and FUR issues above are sorted out.
 * The above issues have been addressed. Good job. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC))