Talk:Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 17:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Body

• Similar to its predecessor - Predecessor or predecessors?
• a crossover fighting game co-developed by Capcom and Eighting. - Which one is the lead developer?
  • I believe it's Capcom, but how exactly should I word the sentence? Wani (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Something like "Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 is a fighting video game developed by Capcom in collaboration with Eighting."
      • I just put down what you wrote. Wani (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• After the events of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami disrupted the development schedule for downloadable content for the original game, the additional content was created into a standalone title for a discounted retail price. - Is the standalone title Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3? The lead does not mention about it.
• The game utilizes the same tag team-based fighting mechanics as its predecessor - Does previous installments include this features? If they are, it should be in plural form.
• Since it is an updated version, I would prefer the gameplay section to focus more on the new features introduced instead of the old features in Fate of Two Worlds. I recommend you to condense it. A great example for this would be the gameplay section of The Last of Us Remastered.
  • I tried condensing it a little bit, without sacrificing too much flow. Is this good, or should I keep trimming the section? Wani (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It is better now. You can further highlight the differences between the two versions if you plan to promote the article to FA. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• The “X-Factor” mechanic, which grants increased damage output, speed, and health regeneration for a limited time upon activation, also reappears - Then when it was introduced?
• remained available for download up until all DLC content for the game was removed from online stores in December 2013, as well as the last paragraph of the development section - Is there a reason why it was removed?
  • There's a lot of speculation regarding this, but neither Marvel nor Capcom have gone on record explaining the reason for their removal. Wani (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of the playable characters section sounds like something from the development section instead.
• The update, titled Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, would add new characters, stages, modes, story elements, and other enhancements to improve the game's balance and online functionality. - Both the Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 and Fate of Two Worlds articles do not mention anything about the game's story, or even setting.
• At the 2011 Tokyo Game Show, Capcom video game producer, Yoshinori Ono - Wikilink Yoshinori Ono
• Did Capcom released the planned DLC for Fate of Two Worlds alongside with Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3? If it is, it isn't represent clearly in the article.
  • The planned DLC for Fate of Two Worlds was packaged with Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3. Any additional DLC beyond that was released only for Ultimate, and not the original. Wani (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Information with the pre-order bonuses, Costume Pack, the game being delisted, can be split to a "Release" section.
• Besides the lead, the article never mention when the game was released.
  • Got another question. The official North American release date for the PlayStation Vita version is February 22, 2012, the same date as the console's official launch. However, those who ordered the limited edition bundle were able to get the game on February 15, a whole week earlier. Which date do I list in the infobox? Maybe both? Wani (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You should use the main release date in the infobox, while the limited bundle release date can also be mentioned in the infobox with the use of notelist, similar to Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• IGN's Steven Hopper complimented the graphics, stating - You can just call him "Hopper", as his full name was mentioned before.

References

• It is The Escapist publishing source 2, 36 and 32, not The Escapist.
• You should use the work field for Source 7 as The Guardian is a magazine.
• The original publisher for Source 8, 34 and 25 was Joystiq, not Engadget.
• You should use the work field for Source 40 as Polygon is a website
• iPLAYWINNE and Eventhubs are not reliable sources
• You should use the work field for Source 52 as Game Informer is a magazine
• You should use the work field for Source 53 as GamePro is a magazine
• There is really a lot of primary sources used in this article. Source 3, 5, 10, 16, 18, 22, 23, 26, 35, 38, 39, 63, 64 are all primary sources. You need to find replacement for them. Cut the number of primary sources to only 6 or 7.
  • Done. If I counted correctly, there should be about six primary sources remaining. Wani (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Images

• Change the current template to Template:Non-free use rationale video game cover for File:UMvC3 Alternate Cover.jpg and File:UMvC3 Cover.jpg. Create a talk page for the alternate cover file
• Don't leave some fields n.a. in File:UMvC3 screenshot.png. It does not have a |image has rationale=yes tag in the licensing section as well.

Review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and y:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Generally speaking it is a well-written article. However, the article's over-reliance on primary sources is relatively severe here. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• All current issues have been addressed. Any other concerns/suggestions for improvement? Wani (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • With all the issues addressed. Article Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 is ready to promote to status. Congratulations! AdrianGamer (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)