Talk:Capcom Five/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk • contribs • count) 02:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Eurgh, Capcom. Recent years have left me pining for the youthful days of plugging giant 50p coins into some of their better outings.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Minor things needing fixed:
In your "Background" section, consider either using a {{clear}} template or broadening the quotebox so that it doesn't encroach into the next heading. Optional but might look better.
I'd also consider breaking up the "Release and reception" section with subheadings for each title. It would aid navigation, and having the titles appear in the TOC would also give an instant visual list of the "Five" to a reader, which wouldn't hurt.
"The Capcom Five is a set of five video games published by Capcom and unveiled in late 2002." -> products are unveiled then published, so I'd reword that in that order. Perhaps "...five video games unveiled by Capcom in late 2002 and subsequently published beginning in March 2003"?
"Capcom USA followed up with confirmation that they would be exclusively for GameCube" -> "exclusive to the GameCube"
"Resident Evil 4 was the only runaway success of the five" -> There's not usually more than one "runaway success" at a time, given the implication of the phrase that the success has "outrun" its peers. Either use "the runaway success" or "the only genuine success", or words to that effect.
"Killer7 ultimately debuted on multiple consoles" -> You only get one début, so perhaps "ultimately appeared on multiple consoles"?
"It also represents another episode in Nintendo's ongoing quest for third-party developer support on a home console" -> "The series also represents..."
"Nintendo and Capcom enjoyed a close relationship, Mega Man being one of the NES' most prominent franchises" -> "...with Mega Man being"
" under- or overstocking inventory" -> this looks awkward since properly, under-stocking is hyphenated but overstocking isn't. Perhaps spell them both out fully as "under-stocking or overstocking"?
"The game achieved a Metacritic score of 93 and won GameCube Game of the Year awards from numerous publications including IGN, GMR, and USA Today.[17][18][19][20]" -> stick the Metacritic citation after "93".
"This surprise announcement undercut the title's GameCube sales, which totaled 1.6 million, compared to the PlayStation 2's over 2 million." -> Reads a bit awkwardly to me. Perhaps "compared to the sales of the PlayStation 2 version, which exceeded 2 million"
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
All grand except for ref 54, which is just a bare url.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Scope seems good.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Article seems neutral.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
History is stable.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
The sole image used is non-free but has a solid fair use rationale. File:GameCube-Console-Set.png is commons if you want to use that as a lead illustration, however.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
There's work needing to be done for criteria 1a and 1b, plus a citation which needs to be fixed and formatted properly. Beyond that, this article should have no problem passing, so I'm putting it on hold until these concerns are addressed. GRAPPLE X 02:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made virtually all of the changes you suggested. A few points though:
- "I'd also consider breaking up the "Release and reception" section with subheadings for each title. It would aid navigation, and having the titles appear in the TOC would also give an instant visual list of the "Five" to a reader, which wouldn't hurt."
  - It feels a bit weird to me to have sections consisting of only one paragraph. Maybe it's just me. Perhaps I could use {{section}} or {{anchor}} to create anchors to those paragraphs and then make a custom TOC to display those links? I can show you what I mean if you like, since it's a bit complicated...
- ""Killer7 ultimately debuted on multiple consoles" -> You only get one début, so perhaps "ultimately appeared on multiple consoles"?"
  - The sentiment I was trying to convey here is that while Viewtiful Joe was released first on GCN and then PS2 a year later, Killer7 had a multi-platform release from the start. I tried to make that more clear. Dunno if it worked.
- "" under- or overstocking inventory" -> this looks awkward since properly, under-stocking is hyphenated but overstocking isn't. Perhaps spell them both out fully as "under-stocking or overstocking"?"
  - I just used "over-stocking" to preserve the parallelism. I'm assuming it's an accepted alternate spelling. Is that legit?
- "All grand except for ref 54, which is just a bare url."
  - So Reflinks says that website is blacklisted so I'm unsure of its reliability. It's in Japanese so I don't know. I just commented it out until I find some more detailed sales info.
- Re:Images
  - This shouldn't affect anything at all, but just in case you were curious, I found a GREAT pic on Flickr of Shinji Mikami and Suda51 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atomixakira/5630742806/) which would be perfect for this article. I emailed the photographer about changing the licensing and I'm awaiting a response.
Thanks for the review. I've been staring at this prose for over a week so I'm clearly incapable of finding further faults, so thanks for the extra set of eyes. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid using an artificial TOC, it's something that would have to be manually tracked if the article's headings change at all. That image looks great, so if you can get using it that would be brilliant. I think we're good to go here, so I'm going to pass this one. Well done! GRAPPLE X 11:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]