Talk:Digimon Rumble Arena/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: IceWelder (talk · contribs) 21:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been waiting for a review for some time. Please ping me if I forget to review it by Sunday. IceWelder [✉] 21:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the first sentence, per MOS:SEAOFBLUE, either unlink "video game" or change the link to just fighting game. I recommend the latter.
Per WP:VG/LEAD, the year should be featured in the very first sentence. Consider: "... is a 2001 fighting game ...".
Unlink commonly known place names like "Japan", "North America", and "Europe" (WP:OVERLINK).
Consider moving the development/release info between the gameplay and reception summaries to keep the same ordering as the body and better flow. A rough example:
"Digimon Rumble Arena is a 2001 fighting game by Bandai. ... (Gameplay) ... Bandai produced the game under the oversight of Hudson Soft and released it for the PlayStation in Japan in December 2001, followed by North America and Europe in 2002. ... (Reception, etc.)"
That would also be a good place to include the most significant details from the Development section.
"... is part of a video games series connected to ..." - Change "video games series" -> "video game series" and move "part of" out of the link for clarity.
Do we need to explain the plural of "Digimon"? It seems rather obvious based on the usage within the article and no other Digimon article seems to do this.

I just figured it would be more helpful to readers who're unfamiliar with Digimon. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"similarity with" -> "similarity to".
The platforms of a successor are probably not relevant enough for the lead.
On that note, an Oxford comma is used for the platforms list here, but the rest of the article omits all Oxford commas. The usage should be consistent.

Link the Digimon media franchise (first use in the body).
The 2.5D perspective claim is not found in the source given.
"In the options screen, the player can alter the button configuration, set the game's difficulty level to "easy", "medium", or "hard", and enter passwords to unlock new characters." - An options menu is not really a noteworthy feature, so this sentence can be removed.
Simplify "consisting of "fire", "nature", and "water"" -> "fire, nature, or water". Also use em-dashes (—) instead of en-dashes (–).
The term "Digivolve Gauge" is seemingly not presented in the game, nor used further in the article. Simplify to "gauge".
Same goes to "Special Finish".
Consider mentioning that act of transformation is a "Digivolution" as it appears again in the Reception section.
"When the transformation is triggered, the Digimon's human partner briefly appears to order the transformation." - Does this affect the gameplay? If not, the sentence seems unnecessary.
"by which character has the higher life gauge" -> "by which character has more health/life/HP remaining"?
How are items and cards "either beneficial or detrimental"?

"The opening CG movie" - The computer graphics link feels misplaced. What about simpler wording like "The animated opening sequence"?
The credits list the studio's name as "Digital Contents Dept." - with an extra s.
The notion that actors reprised their roles, and especially that some were replaced, is not found within the credits alone. Please add an additional citation that supports this.
Is the Japanese name for Reapermon necessary to mention?

"... it received little coverage from critics.[16] However, ..." - Remove "however" as there is no contradiction.
In that context, mention how many reviews there are on Metacritic to amplify the preceding statement.
The main part of the section would benefit from a paragraph break or two.
Instead of mentioning three times that a reviewer is connected to EGM, avoid that repetition by mentioning the three authors first and later reference them individually by just their last names.
Consider grouping the thoughts either by element discussed or at least by positive/negative to improve flow.

Since release dates on Metacritic are not reliable, there needs to be a better way to source the release for the sequel. Ditto for All-Star Rumble.
Consider merging the two small paragraphs into one.
Since Digimon All-Star Rumble is not a sequel, "Successors" appears like a more appropriate section name.

The error message "{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default" should be repaired.
The Metacritic source titles should be consistent.
Some of the publishers are outdated (e.g. "CBS Interactive" instead of "Red Ventures"). I think that ever-changing publishers are not needed for online publications, but if you would like to use them, make sure they are consistent.

The article is categorized in "CAProduction games" but that company is mentioned nowhere in the article.
The categories should be alphabetized.

Above is my initial review. Feel free to strike completed elements or reply to individual points. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 00:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that should be all the points addressed. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good.