Talk:Mega Man 6/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I intend to undertake a Good Article Review of this article. (I will also review Mega Man 4 for consistency across reviews.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I intend to conduct a Good Article Review of this article. I will start by adding a framework listing the GA criteria, and then assess against each criteria. In all but the best and worst articles I expect to find at least minor ways that the article should be improved prior to getting the tick. It may take me anywhere from a couple of hours to several days to complete the initial review, depending on RL commitments. Each criterion will be marked with a red cross until I have assessed that the article meets or exceeds the criterion, at which time the cross will be changed to a green tick. When the initial review is complete I will let the nominator know via a message on his or her talk page. Thank you for your patience.

  1. Well written:
    (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; Green tick.svg
    The article prose is now clear and concise, with correct spelling and grammar.
    • Resolved - "Another addition to the gameplay is a pair of adaptors that combine Mega Man and his dog Rush into special forms." - Mega Man 4 mentions that that game included adaptors. How are the adaptors in this game different, and are they in addition to or instead of adaptors from previous games?
    • Resolved (better explanation of adaptors above fixes problem) - "Inafune thought that Rush adaptor assembly was inevitable" - Sorry, I just don't understand what this means. Possibly that it was inevitable that the player be able to assemble Rush adaptors? Could you clarify this sentence please?
    • Resolved - "Only eight out of the more than 200,000 total character submissions for Mega Man 6 were accepted for the game. Two of the robots included (Knight Man and Wind Man) were designed by North American fans who entered the Nintendo Power contest." - What happened to the other six? How were they accepted for the game, but not included? Do you mean that Japan and North American BOTH held competitions, and six winning entries were from Japan and two from North America? Could you please clarify this?
    • Resolved - "Instead, Nintendo of America published it in March 1994, ensuring its relative commercial obscurity among concurrent releases." - These sentences don't appear to logically follow. Does the commercial obscurity result from it being published by NOA, or from it being published in March 1994? Why would these factors have caused its obscurity? Would a different time of publishing have yielded a different result? Please clarify.
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation; Green tick.svg
    The article complies with the manuals of style for lead sections, layout, words to watch and fiction.
    The manual of style for lists does not apply to this article.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; Green tick.svg
    All sources appear in a devoted and appropriately described section.
    (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; Green tick.svg
    All content appears to be attributed to reliable sources through the use of inline citations.
    (c) it contains no original research. Green tick.svg
    I see no evidence of original research in this article.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Green tick.svg
    The article now covers all topics I would expect from an article of this kind.
    • Resolved - Music/Soundtrack - I would typically expect an article about a video game to have some discussion of its composer or musical soundtrack, especially when later versions feature "remixed music".
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Green tick.svg
    The article does not go into unnecessary detail.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Green tick.svg
    The article appears to present all notable viewpoints without bias.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Green tick.svg
    The article is stable and does not appear to be the subject of unresolved disputes.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; Green tick.svg
    All images in the article are appropriately licensed and tags.
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Green tick.svg
    All images are relevant and appropriately captioned.

Overview - My initial review is complete. The article is very close to GA quality, and can be promoted once my concerns under 1a and 3a above are addressed. Please leave me a message on my talk page when you believe the concerns are addressed, and I will revisit the review with an eye to promoting the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Overview 2 - My concerns have now been addressed and the article meets the GA criteria. I accordingly Pass the article and promote it to Good Article class. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)