Talk:Mischief Makers/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take this review. I mainly focus on copy editing issues but I'll be looking through refs too. Thanks. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 17:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , cool. Any update? czar ♔  21:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

So sorry Czar, I've had exams all week and I should have told you. I'll finish this review first thing tomorrow morning is that alright? ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 22:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course—just wanted to check in. No rush czar ♔  23:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Lead

 * "Treasure began the game's development in mid 1995 with interest in the console's features although they knew little about it" - little about what? The console or the development?
 * Other than this the lead summarises the article and complies per WP:LEAD. I've also made a minor adjustment.

Gameplay

 * "His creation, the player-character Ultra-InterGalactic-Cybot G Marina Liteyears pursues the professor and grabs" - doesn't make good sense, how about protagonist?

Development

 * "At the time, they knew little about the Nintendo 64's final technical specifications, graphics implementation" - can you put some of this information in the lead? In the lead it just says "they know little about it"!
 * "but found the development environment restrictive and left on a mission to "just ... create great games"" - what's with the ellipsis?
 * I have the feeling that some parts of this section just feels like it was taken out of a journal/magazine, it reads like it's slightly informal and not encyclopedic. For example phrases like "but the team was "just curious" about the console" and "As for their looks, Treasure CEO Maegawa felt that the company..."?

Reception

 * "Dan of Electronic Gaming Monthly wrote that the game is "definitely a sleeper hit"" - Dan who?
 * The prose of this section is generally good though as it is mostly made up of direct quotes, so it meets the GA criteria. The citations are also in the correct places.

On hold
Sorry for coming to this very late. It usually takes me less than a day to review articles but I should have told you I was taking time off. Anyway, the article generally meets the GA criteria, however before it can be promoted there are a few things that needs to be attended to. Some parts of the prose needs to be improved (as I said in the comments) and some parts of the Development section should be copy edited. However these concerns aren't too major, once they have been addressed this could pass. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days. If you have any questions please ask! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 17:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , I think I've addressed everything above save for the following responses: (1) "player-character" is a more accurate term, and its use sets up later uses of the term later in the article, and (2) the ellipsis is to show that text was removed from the direct quote czar ♔  17:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted
Thank you for addressing them so quickly. The article has definitely improved; the prose is in better standing, the sources are reliable and all sections meet the GA criteria. I'll promote this one. Apologies for the late review too - I'm taking a long break from Wikipedia now. Player-character does sound better in this case, you're right. Also that quote is OK too - that might just have been my own mistake! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 15:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)