Talk:Metroid: Samus Returns/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 15:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I will review this article for you.

1 - Well written

1a - Clear and concise prose

...Fusion Mode, an extra hard difficulty setting which also features Samus's Fusion Suit. to ...Fusion Mode, an extra hard difficulty setting which features Samus's Fusion Suit.
- Done. GamerPro64 03:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After hearing that MercurySteam...were interested in taking... to After hearing that MercurySteam...was interested in taking...
- Done. GamerPro64 03:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...to employ the 3D visuals and a dual screen setup offered by the portable system. to ...to employ the 3D visuals and a dual-screen setup offered by the portable system.
- Done. GamerPro64 03:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Their approach was to add to aspects which improved upon the game's core concept of hunting the Metroids. to Their approach was to add to aspects that improved upon the game's core concept of hunting the Metroids.
- Done. GamerPro64 03:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sakamoto hope to start from the original game's "simple and straightforward progression" and "spice up and excite the experience", to Sakamoto hoped to start from the original game's "simple and straightforward progression" and to "spice up and excite the experience",
- Done. GamerPro64 03:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...some of the thrill of discovery. to ...some of the thrills of discovering secrets in the game
- Done. GamerPro64 03:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for prose. I do like the use of illustrative quotes throughout the article, and it's overall well-written. Lazman321 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All prose concerns have been fixed. The article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1b - Adherence to the Manual of Style

The third paragraph in the lead section is too short. Either expand it or merge it with the second paragraph. It could be expanded with mention of the awards it won and was nominated for.

That's all for the Manual of Style, as the criteria only require five aspects of it to be met. The layout is standard, there are no words to be cautious about, the fiction is delegated to the plot section, and there are no lists. Lazman321 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added more info in the lead. GamerPro64 03:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The article does now ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

Since the list of references does follow the guidelines, the article ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2b - Reliable sources

The Metro source should ideally be replaced by a better source, as Metro is considered unreliable as per WP:METRO. My two recommendations are [1] and [2]. Also, what makes Best in Slot a reliable source? It does not have an article on Wikipedia, is not listed on Wikiproject Video games's source list, and I cannot seem to access it. For an award ceremony as famous as the Golden Joystick Awards, there should be better sources to be found.

That's about it for reliable sources. I am allowing the Business Insider and the AXS sources to be used. Lazman321 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- replaced the sources with links I think works out. GamerPro64 04:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The replaced sources are more reliable and verifications checks out. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2c - No original research

The gameplay section mentions the game being in 2.5D perspective, however, neither of the sources listed state this. Other than that, everything else seems to be backed up by their sources. Lazman321 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used a Venturebeat source for that claim. GamerPro64 04:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verification checks out for the source. However, I do have one more concern. That is the genre of the game. Both the lead and the infobox state that Metroid: Samus Returns is an action-adventure game. However, the gameplay section states that it is a side-scrolling platform game. Looking at the sources, particularly the reviews, it appears that the consensus is that Metroid: Samus Returns is simply an action game.[3][4]. I recommend changing the listed genres in the article to action game.

It's like every other Metroid game. Even Dread with won Best Action Adventure game at the VGAs. It would be weird to list this game as only action and the rest action adventure. GamerPro64 05:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I will allow it. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2d - No copyright violations

With a copyvio score of 14.5%, the article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3 - Broad in its coverage

3a - Main aspects

The reception could definitely be expanded. It could be expanded on details like combat, exploration, setting, etc. The reviews are pretty in-depth, and Metacritic has a lot of reviews for the game catalogued like Electronic Gaming Monthly. Also, the video game score table has Game Informer and Nintendo World Report listed, both of which are not used in the reception section, even though they could be and it is not recommended by the template page to list scores of reviews not used in the reception section. Lazman321 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the reception section has been expanded. It's definitely more in-depth. I believe this article does now ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3b - Focused

The article never strays off-topic. As such, this article does now ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4 - Neutral

One half of the reception section seems to deal with appraisal and the other half seems to deal with criticism. If this game truly was positively received, shouldn't the section have mostly positive feedback, not just half of it? Lazman321 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, I may have to disagree with you on this, Yes, the game received mostly positive reviews. However, Shouldn't the article at least mention some of the negative reception? (WP:WEiGHT). Also looking through this article, I would say that its 3/4 positive, 1/4 negative. That is a good mixture, especially considering the reception the game received. PerryPerryD (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the reception section should mention some negative reception from the critics. However, it should be proportionate to the level of criticism among reviewers. You are right that there may be less negative feedback in the section than I thought. Of course, there is still the issue of the reception section being too short, which is probably why the negative feedback stands out to me in the section so much. This problem may be ironed out once the reception section is expanded, though this remains to be seen. Lazman321 (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazman321 What can be added to the reception section to improve it? Remember to Be bold and edit things that dont seem right if you can. PerryPerryD (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazman321 Looking back through this article, Each reviewer that is listed in the review scores list is mentioned to a degree, the way i see it. I cant find anything to add to that section PerryPerryD (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing, Isnt the reception section usually not applicable to the "Neutrality" requirement? As reviews are in every sense of the words, not neutral. The way i see it, I believe that this article may be fine the way it is. However, as always, It is your call on this. PerryPerryD (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to bloat out the review, as it could inconvenience GamerPro64, the nominator, so I will just direct you to WP:Good article nominations/Instructions, WP:Reception, and WP:Neutral point of view, respective to each of your comments. Go to my user talk page if you have questions. Lazman321 (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added more to the section and gave some more neutral sentences in parts. GamerPro64 02:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to the section. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion now. Lazman321 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5 - Stable

There are no active edit wars or content disputes. As such, this criterion does ✓ Pass. Lazman321 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

6 - Illustrated by media

6a - Copyright tags

Both of the non-free images have valid rationales, and the image of Yoshio Sakamoto has a free license. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

6b - Relevant media

All three images are relevant. The cover art and the screenshot are direct from the game itself, and Sakamoto was involved in the game. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7 - Verdict

@GamerPro64: I am placing this article On hold for fourteen days. My main problem is with the reception section. It is too short and too mixed considering how much reviewers have praised this game. This is why the article is being put on hold for fourteen days instead of seven, as the reception section will probably take a bit to expand and rewrite. Good luck. Lazman321 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64: Great job so far. I still have one more concern that I would like to address. I have added it to the original research criterion section. Lazman321 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns have now been addressed. This article has

Passed this review and will now be considered a good article. Lazman321 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]