Talk:Policenauts/GA1

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

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 13:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take this on. Ping me in July if I'm not back to this by then. Looks like a relatively easy one. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Right, I'm back, here's some bits I caught.
 * In the lead, what do you mean by "wider re-releases". More regions? Greater distribution? Expanded content? It's not that clear.
 * ✅ -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the term "Japan bashing" be in quotes? It doesn't sound very encyclopedic.
 * ✅ -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "The version comes packaged in a slipcase containing the game case itself and a hardbound art book.[4][3]" - Rearrange refs to be in numerical order.
 * ✅ -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "An official English translation of Policenauts was announced for release on the Sega Saturn in 1996 in North America.[22][3][23][24]" - Same as above.
 * ✅ -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "GameFan reviewed the PlayStation and Saturn ports.[15][3] " - Same as above.
 * ✅ -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The whole retrospective section needs rewriting to contain fewer direct quotes. One nearly every sentence is too much. Also possibly a little rewrite for conciseness would be good, since at the moment it feels very long-winded.
 * Please link 1Up.com in its first appearance.
 * ✅ -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Now for the refs.
 * General thing with the references, but the publisher/websites need linking. Not essential, but preferred if possible.
 * ✅ -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ref 1 needs switching to dead url, 1Up.com no longer active.
 * ✅ -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ref 7 is a dead/moribund website, and needs to be marked as a dead URL just as a precaution. Also, no access-date.
 * ✅ -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ref 8 just uses a bare URL for the website/publisher, which is Konami. Please correct this.
 * ✅ -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ref 12 is Suruga-ya, a web store, which I don't believe is long-term reliable. This Famitsu article also has the date, and I'd trust that as a source more than Suruga-ya.
 * ✅ -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ref 33 needs an alternate source, or properly archiving, as the older review pages on Famitsu have broken text. It's only used for the score, so it's less of an issue. SegaRetro includes scans, if it helps magazine issue and such holding the review for the SS version.
 * ✅ -- I managed to find which issue has the review for the Sega Saturn version but i couldn't find the issue online. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

That's what I saw on my runthrough. Most of the issues are in the references. I'll put it on hold for now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I did almost most of the corrections except the reception section, which i'll leave to or someone else to change it. Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey! any advice as to what can you see that needs to be changed or removed from the article's retrospective section in order to finally get this at the GA level? Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for bothering you but since you're the one who did most of the work and i'm trying to get this to a GA status (seeing that PatTheMoron is busy with other stuff here in Wikipedia), what can you see that needs to be changed or removed from the article's retrospective section in order to finally get this at the GA level? Any recommendations? Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no rush. Let's give Pat a week or so to respond. After all, they did not consult with me before nominating the article, so I presume they intend to do any necessary improvements themselves. TarkusAB talk / contrib 05:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi and ! Sorry for being out of touch for a while, but thank you so much for what you've done here. I've made some grammatical changes and reductions to the reception section - is that what you were thinking would improve it? PatTheMoron (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What ProtoDrake means is that the retrospective section in the reception area of the article needs rewriting to contain fewer direct quotes. That's all what's needed to get this nomination done. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've done some more pruning, but if you think anything else could be cut or shortened I'm happy to make the changes. PatTheMoron (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good! The retrospective reception section was now reworked by Pat. What do you think? Roberth Martinez (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article looks good now. I think I can give this a Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)