Talk:Namco Generations/GA1

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

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 14:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting article. Short and sweet, and I can certainly see why. Let's have a look, shall we? Red Phoenix talk  14:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't honestly say I think File:NG News Volume 9.png meets WP:NFCC #8. Demonstrating that there was a newsletter released is something that can be explained in prose alone. I would understand wanting to add an image to illustrate the article more, but this one unfortunately misses the mark and I'd recommend it be removed and deleted.
 * Removed the picture.
 * to also positive reception - Awkward wording, "also to positive reception" would be better.
 * Corrected
 * Due to the game's strong sexual nature and for being a rather obscure, it was met with dire confusion from publications. A rather obscure what? Or you could drop the a and just go with "rather obscure".
 * That was actually a typo, I meant to just put "rather obscure".
 * Namco Bandai cites "various circumstances" as the reason for the project's termination[23]. Presuming this was an announcement at some point, the past tense "cited" is more appropriate. Also, make sure the ref is after the period.
 * Fixed.
 * Engadget blamed the cancellation of the remaining two games and a general lack of updates from Bandai Namco for the Namco Generations label being discontinued. Make sure to use the author's name if he's the one blaming, and the publication is only publishing his opinion. This applies over the next three sentences.
 * Corrected this in all three sentences.
 * They noted of the company's unusual quiet nature towards the project in general, as well as commenting that neither of the cancelled titles lived up to the expectations of the first two games. "Noted of" is an awkward expression, you could remove the "of" or reword".
 * Fixed.
 * You should check your Destructoid references - are the two writers noteworthy? Per WP:VG/S on Destructoid, "Like other blog sites, some content may be reliable, but only if the author can be established as such. Community user-blogs fail WP:USERG."  I know Jim Sterling is notable for his opccording toinion but I wouldn't know about using facts when Destructoid doesn't fact-check.  I'm not sure who Jordan Devore is.
 * According to his user page, Jordan is one of the founding members of the site. I think that alone establishes some credibility.
 * I will trust that you've done your due diligence on broadness. I didn't find a whole lot more on a search for more sources, but I think we have a sufficient amount if we resolve the reliability concerns in the last bullet point.

That should be it. Nice work. Red Phoenix talk  14:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * - Addressed all issues. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 16:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All right, looks good. On the Destructoid bit, I'm willing to go with it on Devore since being a founding member (and co-Editor in Chief on his LinkedIn) would suggest reliability.  The two Destructoid bits are supported with other reliable sources as well, so I think this looks good and we're ready to pass.  Well done.   Red Phoenix  talk  17:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch! Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 17:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)