Talk:Shin-chan: Me and the Professor on Summer Vacation/GA1

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

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 00:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll call dibs on this one as it looks interesting. Not a game I'm familiar with personally, but it looks like a neat one. The article looks really good on a cursory review, but I'll have some specific feedback for you shortly. Red Phoenix talk  00:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

So, this looks really good. Nice work. I don't usually use templates for these, but I want to demonstrate that I've reviewed for all of the criteria:


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Comments below. Really, the only concern I have has to do with sectioning.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * As a subject matter expert when it comes to WP:VG/RS, these are reliable sources, including the Japanese ones. A pass through the copyvio detector showed no real issues; those that did flag are simply because of the game's long title. No signs of OR.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * As per MOS:VG, we have the base sections covered: development, gameplay, and reception. Detail is significant enough to meet the MOS.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Appears to meet WP:NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Edit history is stable.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images have appropriate rationales (I even marked them as reviewed for possessing rationales), and even have alt text. That is fantastic!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Let's discuss the sectioning, but I think we'll be passing this very shortly.

A couple of points of feedback:
 * Only sourcing question I had was with the Japanese reviews. I'm presuming you have already, but did you check to see if the reviewers have names?  I don't read Japanese so I can't determine, but I just wanted to be sure we're covering all the bases.
 * I've double checked and the 4Gamer and Famitsu writers are respectively credited mononymously as "Tamako" and "Nishikawa", which is not an uncommon practice in the Japanese enthusiast press, but I think it would just create confusion in the article if it stated "Tamako of 4Gamer..." or what have you. Morgan695 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I can let that go. Red Phoenix  talk  01:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, so let's talk sectioning. The one issue I have is with how much things are broken up into sections and paragraphs. While I understand the principles of doing small sections in order to divide up every concept, articles read with better fluency if we consolidate smartly.  Namely, here are the changes I would suggest:
 * Remove the subsections from Reception, and take the sales statement and make it the first sentence of the first paragraph. It still fits the reception mold: how a product sold is the ultimate measure of how it was received by the public, and it can still be followed by the Metacritic sentence as that is a measure of how it was received by the press.  The opening paragraph then fits as an introduction to the section.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Condense the last paragraph of Release into the paragraph above. We talk about all the languages the worldwide release was in in that paragraph, then do a separate paragraph for its release date. That just seems excessive and segmented.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Consider combining the Planning and Production subheaders of development, and combining the two Production paragraphs together. They would possess better flow and still read sensibly in such a manner.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Overall looks really good. Let me know when you have looked into my feedback points, and I'm fully anticipating I'll be passing this article in a very short amount of time. Nicely done. Red Phoenix talk  01:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Quick on the draw. Passing now.  Well done.   Red Phoenix  talk  01:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)