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

GA Review

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

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Appears to meet WP:NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Edit history is stable.

6. 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!

7. 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)

• @Red Phoenix: 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)