Talk:Fire Emblem: New Mystery of the Emblem/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: IDV (talk · contribs) 15:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be doing this one.--IDV^talk 15:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
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:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Lead/infobox

The footnote says that it is considered the twelfth or the thirteenth by different sources, yet the text in the lead only says it is the twelfth. Is there a reason for favoring this? I'd probably skip the numbering entirely in the lead's text and just go "It is part of the Fire Emblem series[b]"
In addition, the game adapts [...] four additional story episodes - I'd probably reword it to not use addition(al) twice in the same sentence
Preparations for New Mystery of the Emblem began during development of the first game's 2008 DS remake, using the original Mystery of the Emblem as a starting point for their development. - I would specify that "the first game" refers to Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light, perhaps by linking to it like [[Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light|the first ''Fire Emblem'' game's]]
The sentence also seems unclear: "using the original Mystery of the Emblem as a starting point for their development" - what does this mean, exactly? Was MotE used as a starting point for both remakes? Please reword it to be clearer.
co-director and writer Kouhei Maeda - Why not mention the other director as well?
units defeated in missions were revived are revived
link permanent death to Permadeath
It would be good to mention when The Binding Blade came out so we can get some perspective on how long ago it had been.
I suggest making full use of the fair-use cover image and identify characters depicted on it - I suggest adding a caption like "Cover art, featuring the characters [character name] and [character name]"

Gameplay

Fire Emblem: New Mystery of the Emblem: Heroes of Light and Shadow is a - that's a mouthful. Because the title is so long, I think it'd be all right to just refer to it as New Mystery of the Emblem after the first mention in the lead.
Link class to Character class
Maybe I'm in the wrong here since English isn't my first language, but "stats" sounds kind of jargon-y to me. This appears multiple times in the article.
Players can save at the end of each chapter, or during battles. Does this mean the player can save at any time? Because if so, it's simpler to say just that.
You should link Marth on the first mention after the lead (and unlink his name in the synopsis section further down)
I wouldn't necessarily say that lances are stronger than swords - "strong against" is probably more accurate
"level up" also feels jargon-y - I'd change it to something like "their experience level increases"
these classes, when at level 10, can be promoted using a Master Seal - What does this mean?
single-playing should probably be "single-player"
The game is played should probably be "can be played" as it's an option

Synopsis

a land also featured in the first Fire Emblem title Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light. You don't need the Fire Emblem supertitle - just the subtitle will do, and is shorter. Also, I think there should be a comma following "the first Fire Emblem title"
the land was threatened by the dark sorcerer Gharnef, who summons the dark dragon Medeus into the world. - You switch from past to present tense. Is the summoning something that happens in NMotE, or is it part of the backstory?
After becoming a fugitive from his kingdom after an attack on his kingdom, Archanean prince Marth goes on a quest to - Goes on a quest to what? Also, "his kingdom, his kingdom".
In the story of Mystery of the Emblem, Marth's old ally Hardin has ascended the throne, but begins expanding the military and dominating the other regions of Archanea. What, so does this not happen in NMotE, just the original? If it happens in NMotE too, I don't understand why it says "In the story of Mystery of the Emblem". If it does not happen in NMotE, it shouldn't be mentioned here at all, I think.
In New Mystery of the Emblem, the story remains unchanged, but Marth runs into the Avatar and takes them with him on his adventures. - I feel like this should be the first thing mentioned in the synopsis section.

Development

Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon the 2008 DS remake of Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light. - there should be a comma following "Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon"
but they decided - you have not yet specified who this "they" is, so you need to change it to "the developers" or something similar
they could not make New Mystery of the Emblem using the systems of Shadow Dragon, using the original Mystery of the Emblem as a starting point. - is this meant to say "so they instead used the original Mystery of the Emblem as a starting point"?
Add what year Genealogy came out, so we get some perspective - this is a discussion dating way back to 1996, not just something that has been discussed for a few years
20th Anniversary - is there a reason this isn't written "20th anniversary" or "twentieth anniversary"?

Reception

remove the extra space in " far more than

References/Notes

There's currently a thread at the WPVG's sources page about Cubed3, and it doesn't seem like it is a usable source. I don't know how much the gameplay section relies on this, so that might be a problem unless you find a replacement, but you should just be able to remove the Cubed3 parts from the reception section without too much of a loss.
I don't know if this is just up to preference, so I won't fail the review for it or anything, but it makes more sense to me to have the informational footnote list above the reference list, especially as the notes make use of references.

Comments/discussion

Looking pretty good. The biggest issue is the use of Cubed3; additionally, there are some prose issues, but they should be easy to take care of. I'll put this On hold for a week; if everything is fixed/addressed by then, I'll pass the article.--IDV^talk 13:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IDV: Addressed most of the points you raised. But I will explain the footnote. The reason I put it in there is because of BS Fire Emblem, which is alternately shown as either part of the series as a whole or just a spin-off not counted in official lists. This affects how the titles are numbered, as the remakes are considered official titles. I've been treating BS as if it's not an official part, but still acknolweding that there is discrepancy over exact numbering (with sources to back it up). In addition, I've been using the footnote rather than another user's style, which was "12th entry (13th overall)", as it gives a chance for commentary and keeps the lead tidy. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right, fair enough. I would have liked to see the remaining points I brought up addressed, but looking over the article and your changes, I don't think they're big enough issues to stand in the way of a GA promotion, so I'll

Pass the article.--IDV^talk 22:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]