Talk:Marvel vs. Capcom/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 19:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Games
Does "arcade systems" mean "Arcade game"? If so, why not say it was released as an "arcade game" with a link?
Done Wani (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"ported" should link to Porting
Done Wani (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Street Fighter is linked directly, but no link for X-Men?~~
Should I link the X-Men portion of X-Men vs. Street Fighter or something? The term by itself (instead of part of a title) doesn't appear until the development section. Wani (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the link in Development when I added this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just added that. My fault. Wani (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Marvel universe" should link to Marvel Universe
Done Wani (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay
"...players select multiple to form..." missing the word characters here
Done Wani (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This feature was replaced in..." This sentence is a little choppy. I suggest combining it with the following sentence.
Done Wani (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Characters
"The games have seldom introduced original characters, which include... " I think seldom is an awkward adjective here. I think "Rarely, the games have introduced original characters such as..." or something similar.
Done Wani (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there a character article that Abyss can link to?~~ Upon inspection, I see there is not.

Development
"Community, Seth Killian, stated " The commas aren't needed here as worded. Was Killian the "former" Marketing Director when he said this? If not, I suggest rephrasing it as "In 2011, then-current [title] Seth Killian stated..."
Done Wani (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Capcom lost the use of the Marvel license" to whom? Any reason given? What year did they get it back? I assume 2010, but this is not stated.
All sources are pretty vague on the details here. I assume their licensing contract simply expired, similar to what happened after the release of Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to find a reference for that. Wani (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hate when that happens. If nothing's available, this is not an issue. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception
"As of December 2016, approximately 7 million units have been sold, currently making it Capcom's eighth best-selling franchise" to avoid potentially becoming dated, I suggest rewriting this as "Approximately 7 million units of the series had been sold by December 2016, making it Capcom's eighth best-selling franchise." or something similar.
Done Wani (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concerns
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:
Citations [17], [24], [49], [55], [63], [64], [65], [100], and [117] use all caps for the page title. Please change these to sentence case.
Done. But while on the subject, do you have any idea why the reference numbers are being thrown off? For example, [117] in the reference section corresponds to [123] in the reception section. I've tried finding the issue, but wasn't successful. Wani (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's caused by the 6 notes under the list of characters, although I'm not sure why. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
Is there a source for the playable characters in the upcoming game?
Since they are sourced within the Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite article, I wasn't sure if it was necessary. Should I copy the references over anyway? Wani (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there's one citation that covers them, it can be added at the top of the table next to the MvCI header. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Wani (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig has some weak returns due to the various game names. One strong match between the article's "which showcased a two-on-one fight with Ryu and Ken against M. Bison" and the source's "which showcased a two-on-one fight of Ryu and Ken against M. Bison." This needs to be reworded or more accurately quoted.
Done Wani (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Does the minimate line not warrant a mention in the related media? Some sources can be found here.
Done Wani (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there any explanation for the ten year delay between 2 and 3?~~ I now see this is discussed in the Development section.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
The article is actively edited, but no obvious vandalism or edit warring.
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:
Rationales provided

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The use of "current" in the infobox caption is vague and may become MOS:DATED. I suggest revising it to "Marvel vs Capcom logo used since YEAR", or something similar. Per WP:CAPTION#Succinctness, the caption for the image in Gameplay is too long. It needs to be shortened and/or the image size should be upscaled.
I shortened the caption. Is it still too long or is it good? Wani (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It works for me.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass pending minor concerns listed above
Additional note - does Diamond Comics link to the right article? It's currently pointing at a publisher in India. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it did not. Corrected now. Wani (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the corrections - promoted. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]