Talk:Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kiyoshiendo (talk · contribs) 01:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the article for general criteria issues. I didn't find any, but I did find a few issues. Here are all my comments:

General prose is mechanically legible. It's not engaging, as the sentences are choppy and are often cut short. It needs better flow, like a featured article (such as Bastion (video game)).
The lead is summarised nicely. It's a little long, but it's as long as it needs to be, especially considering the amount of ports it has received.
The plot is accurate from what I remember, though it needs some more citations. It's okay for a good article, but for a featured it will need some proof from the game itself for verifiability.
The development section is super long. It should be more summary, maintaining more or less the same information without having two browser screens worth of text. Same for the localisation.
The release section could use a bulleted list or a table to organise the release dates. The text is obtuse as it stands. Same for the sales and legacy section.
Reception should summarise each element of the game (gameplay, writing, etc.) without putting each of the reviews into random order.
The references are notable and reliable as far as I can tell, though they need to follow a more orderly citation (though I don't care about that myself).
Images are well-used and don't violate any copyrights.

So in sum, this article does meet all of the Good Article critera, but it's a far cry from being Featured. Congratulations on your promotion, and if you help out with all the Phoenix Wright games, you may have a Good Topic. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiyoshiendo: Thank you for the review. Yeah, I know it's far from FA - I'll start to improve the article in accordance with your suggestions later today. I wonder what you mean by though they need to follow a more orderly citation, though. I'd like to fix it, but I don't actually know what it means. Cheers.--IDV^talk 02:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that? Not all of the citations have publishers and authors. This could be because they aren't applicable, but it's something to consider. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. It's not applicable in all cases (Anime News Network usually doesn't say who the author is, for instance), but yeah, I've probably missed some instances. I'll take a look at it. Oh, and I forgot to reply to that, but yes, I do intend to go through all Ace Attorney articles. Might be a problem with Dai Gyakuten Saiban, since I'm not good enough at Japanese to play it, and don't have a JP region 3DS, but I'll save that one for last and hope that it gets localized before I get to it.--IDV^talk 02:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]