Talk:Dragon Quest XI/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: OceanHok (talk · contribs) 11:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I think I will quick-fail this. Here are my comments:

The lead is insufficient. There is no mention of gameplay and plot, which are two important sections in this article.
Elements added later included an expanded plot and an option to listen to an orchestral version of the score. - So these are part of the game's DLC or exclusive to the Switch version? What do you mean by expanded plot though? It was never mentioned in detail in the release section afterwards.
One of the first games announced for the Nintendo Switch video game console, the game was originally conceived as an open world game - a bit clumsy. You have just mentioned Switch in the paragraph just directly above.
The gameplay section is inadequate. It barely explains to me how this game plays. "Common elements of the Dragon Quest series" is only a "see also" and readers should not need to click on that to understand how this game plays.
including the ability to explore high areas - what even is this?
Also, try to reduce comparisons with other Dragon Quest titles. For readers who have never played any DQ games (like me), it doesn't help me understand anything.
The plot section is a little bit too long. Try to trim it to 700 words or below. I also think that a subsection discussing the setting of the game would help me understand the plot a bit easier, because there is a lot of in-universe stuff in the plot section that can be better explained.
The development and release section contains very little information about the actual development, which is disappointing. Just a quick Google I find these already that contains at least something about the game's design: [1][2][3]. I am sure there should be a lot more, both in English and Japanese sources, for a big-budget title in a long-running series.
GamingBolt is not considered to be a RS
The reception section is too short. It doesn't explain what critics actually praise, while spending a lot of time discussing the criticisms, which is a bit WP:UNDUE, meaning that this section isn't an accurate representation of the game's actual reception
some critics regarded the overly conservative nature - I don't think you really have discussed what exactly is this "overly conservative nature" as well. The wording is overly vague. Does that mean turn-based combat?
The protagonist being included as a figher in Smash isn't really a "reception". Move it somewhere else.

While I applaud your project for nominating many of the articles to GA. This needs some more work before it has a chance of passing. OceanHok (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the article is not perfect, but I don’t see why I can’t have a week to addrsss the issues... @OceanHok: Judgesurreal777 (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But, since the changes seem to be extensive in every section I can see why a week may be too little time, most of us don’t have a free week! :) Anyway, thanks for the review. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it would be better if you are not put under a time restraint while working on the article. Anyway, I am open to come back again if you renoninate it several weeks or a month later. OceanHok (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]