Talk:Mega Man X3/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TeenAngels1234 (talk · contribs) 09:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Since I'm kinda busy this is gonna take some time. But anyway, here we go.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• " has been above average". In what sense was the reception "above average"? What is the average? I would change this expression and expand the sentence while we are at it.
  • Done.
• The whole part about sales of the SNES version ("The North American and the European SNES version of Mega Man X3 are very rare .... such as eBay") I would put in Reception. It seems more appropriate there.
  • Done
• "converted it to data in her leisure". What?
  • Removed.

@Tintor2: The rest is fine.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC) @TeenAngels1234: Tried revising everything. Removed the average as there is not too much from Metacritic to back such claim.Tintor2 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC) @TeenAngels1234: Anything missing? I went ahead and removed the references from the lead and balanced the date.Tintor2 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

   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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Perfect. Good prose, good grammar, reliable sources. Good job.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)