Talk:Mega Man X3/GA1

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

Reviewer: TeenAngels1234 (talk · contribs) 09:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Since I'm kinda busy this is gonna take some time. But anyway, here we go.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC) The rest is fine.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC) Tried revising everything. Removed the average as there is not too much from Metacritic to back such claim.Tintor2 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC) Anything missing? I went ahead and removed the references from the lead and balanced the date.Tintor2 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * " has been above average". In what sense was the reception "above average"? What is the average? I would change this expression and expand the sentence while we are at it.
 * Done.
 * The whole part about sales of the SNES version ("The North American and the European SNES version of Mega Man X3 are very rare .... such as eBay") I would put in Reception. It seems more appropriate there.
 * Done
 * "converted it to data in her leisure". What?
 * Removed.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Perfect. Good prose, good grammar, reliable sources. Good job.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Perfect. Good prose, good grammar, reliable sources. Good job.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Perfect. Good prose, good grammar, reliable sources. Good job.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)