Talk:Metroid Prime: Trilogy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I loved playing Metroid Prime 3, but never got around to the other two. Nice to see this in GAN. I'm placing this article on hold, however, to allow issues to be resolved (don't feel disheartened; the large majority is easy to fix). GA acceptance should follow suit.

Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   See comments below.

   Pass (1a)

   Pass (1b)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments below.

   Pass (2a)

   Pass (2b)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See comments below.

   Pass (3b)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Collaboration between several editors, one revert, but stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See comments below.

   Pass (6b)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Article is placed on hold for seven days in order to address issues pointed out.

   Pass (7) _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Everything below should be easy to fix, thus why the article is on hold.

Prose and MoS

I've copy-edited the article as I read along. Issues I cannot resolve:

• "...where the Prime and Echoes remakes were released as standalone games in the New Play Control! collection." -> I'm unsure how to define New Play Control!, and as a result, cannot tell if it should be italicized or quoted. All instances should additionally be consistent.
  • The main article on NPC has no difference, so I didn't change.
    • There were still two other instances where the name wasn't italicised. I was bold and did it.
• ...allowing them to unlock in-game items such as artwork, music, and other features." -> "Other features" should be expanded upon or removed, as it is vague.
  • Expanded.
• The white-space under the first image; I see the point, but I'm debating on whether the article looks better without.
  • Removed.
• "...from Space Pirate Frigate Orpheon." -> Should "frigate" be capitalized? Is it part of a title?
  • It's the ship type. It's capitalized in most related media (i.e. SSBB), so we just leave that way.
    • Fine by me.
• "It is yet to be seen if Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2: Echoes will be getting a New Play Control release in those regions." -> WP:CRYSTAL; rephrase the sentence to accurately portray the source, or remove the statement altogether.
  • Removed.

References

• What makes Nintendo World Report (one instance) and Coffee with Games (two instances) notable?
  • Replaced and removed.
• Refs #3, 5, 8, 11, 15, 25, and 34 have no publisher info.
  • Included.
    • I seem to have forgotten #6. Done it myself.
• Ref #8, 11 are dead (but oddly, #15 is not).
  • Metacritic got redesigned, the Cube reviews are MIA. Replaced those two with Game Rankings.
• Ref #16 says "pp. 6". This should say "p. 6", as it is not a range of pages.
  • Done.
• Ref #26 has no publishing date, though I can see one at the end of the review. Same with #34 and 36.
  • Done.
• Could Ref #27 and 33 be redone with the Cite template? Their formats are inconsistent with the rest.
  • It's just that they're "Cite journal" as opposed to "Cite web". But I decided to expand to make they look like the rest.
    • Sorry about that; I personally don't use the templates (I prefer writing it out the old-fashioned way), so I only knew of the Cite Web's format.
• Ref #33 directs me to a Computers and Video Games review, not NGamer.
  • They are sister websites (there's an "NGamer" icon within the review).
    • My bad, didn't see it.
• NEW: Not going to wait for you to do it, but whenever you get the chance, you should rearrange in-line citations to ascend (e.g., [1][6][13]). I can't find the MOS guideline to quote, but it's not a GA necessity.

Criterion 3

• 3a: Can you find a number for total sold copies (similar to the PDF in ref #16)? If not, it's not a problem.
  • I tried. The best I could was "number it didn't reach in August 2009".
    • No problem. I know games do not normally have their sales publicised unless over a certain number.
• 3b: "...as well as a brief cinematic of the four versions of Samus in combat when loading the multiplayer mode." -> Is this notable?
  • Removed.

• 3b: Is the Discontinuation section essential enough to deserve its own section? I recommend cutting it down a bit and merging it with the introduction to the Release section.
  • Moved.

Images

• The image in the infobox doesn't seem too sure about the copyright owner. I'm fairly sure it is Nintendo, so just remove the words "is believed" from the description.
  • There's no problem with those words, it's just something the rationale template puts.
    • Gotcha.
• The fair use image used in the article should have a caption which reflects on its fair use rationale.
  • Done.
    • I meant the other fair use image in the prose. It should give a quick description of the "new features added to the Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2: Echoes portions of Metroid Prime: Trilogy, including widescreen support and a targeting reticule indicative of the retooled controls", as the Fair Use rationale states it's there for.
      • Now it's done, I misunderstood... rewrite the caption if needed. igordebraga ≠ 01:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I skinned it a little bit, if you don't mind, because it was quite a long caption for such a small image. If you want, you can try placing it to the right instead of the left, purely for aesthetic purposes.

Strike off as you complete them. Feel free to question them or reply as well, as I'm watching the review page. Regards. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Do any of those points still stand, or there's anything else? igordebraga ≠ 03:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge your changes, but you'll have to give me about an hour and a half from now to check on them, as I'm busy IRL (only checked this out because you posted on my talk page). It shouldn't take long to review, either, so I'm sure it will pass. Should be back with an update at around 18:30 UTC, max. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Final point to manage and it should be about it. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)