Talk:Mega Man 5/GA1

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

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 10:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Body

 * is a video game developed by Capcom for the Nintendo Entertainment System.} - What kind of video game? What is the genre of it?
 * It is the fifth game in the original Mega Man series and was originally released in Japan on December 4, 1992. - "Originally" is not necessary, despite Capcom re-released the game several times.
 * The lead does not mention anything about the game's development
 * Mega Man 5 was met with an average to fairly positive critical reception, - A bit vague. It should be "mixed" or "positive" instead of something in between. The scores for the game seems fairly high, so I'd go with simply "positive"
 * Mega Man 5 was met with an average to fairly positive critical reception, with the one major complaint being its lack of originality in either its plot or gameplay. - Does the game received any praise? It can also be added to the lead.
 * either its plot or gameplay - Should be "both...and..." instead of "either...or"
 * The gameplay section should go first, then the plot section
 * to run, jump, and shoot his way through a set of stages in the order of the player's choosing. - "in the order of the player's choosing." doesn't really sound like something necessary.
 * Other power-ups including extra lives, "Energy Tanks", and a new "Mystery Tank" (which fully refills health and all item power) can be picked up as well but if all health and weapon power is full, it turns all enemies on screen into extra lives for the player to collect - This sentence is a bit too long and the flow of it is not that good. The use of bracket should be avoided. I don't get what the last sentence means as well. Enemies get killed and was turned to extra lives when player uses these power-ups?
 * Some of the level designs in Mega Man 5 are unique from earlier games in the series - Should use the word "different" instead of "unique" as it sounds more neutral
 * Gathering all eight of these boards (spelling "M-E-G-A-M-A-N-V") will give the player access to a robot-bird friend by the name of Beat. - Present tense - "gives", not "will give"
 * worked under a new project leader for Mega Man 5 - Who is this new project leader then?
 * She would later collaborate with other composers of the core franchise for Mega Man 10 in 2010 - Not really about the development of this game.
 * The development section is packed with content about the game's design, which is a good thing. However, it doesn't really mention anything about when the game was announced, or when the development of the game started.
 * Any information about the game's marketing?
 * I believe that a release section is more sensible than having a "legacy" section.
 * I actually wanted to see more from the reception section. By reading the article I know that the game's graphics, music, play control, and challenge level are good, but I wanted to know more. How good they are and the reason they get praised is very important as well
 * Try to avoid using direct quotes from reviewers for the criticism part
 * Any sales figures for the game?
 * Any awards and nominations for the game?
 * Possibility for copyright violation is 90.9% but I assume that's because some people copy the entire gameplay section to their links. So, it shouldn't be a problem.

Overall
Here is the 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 y:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Generally speaking it is a great article, but the development and reception section can be further expanded. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at some of your comments on the lead, a couple of the elements in the article are also in the articles for Mega Man 1-4 and 6, which are Good Articles themselves. Not sure if its right to make those changes if it all follows a formula like that. GamerPro64  01:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Which one you are referring to? AdrianGamer (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean things like plot being first before gameplay. Also, besides nominations and awards, all I could find was something on the 1993 Nintendo Powers awards, which I don't think that own that issue. I have done some fixing up on the article, though. Let me know how it looks now. GamerPro64  19:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at other Mega Man GAs, the article's quality is on par with the others, so I will pass this. I have one suggestion, is that the reception section could be significantly expanded. But for now, the article is good to go. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)