Talk:Polygon Man/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 19:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article.Tintor2 (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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:

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) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

(c) it contains no original research:

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism:

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):

Neutral

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

Stable

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

Illustrated

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Overall

@Kung Fu Man: Everything looking good but before passing it.

Is the infobox necessary? Polygon Man seems to be more of a mascot than a character. Kinda like Segata Sanshiro but even less appearances
I'd argue yes: he was designed as a fictional character first and meant to be used more, really he's just missing a voice actor. Given Segata has appeared in multiple games I'm surprised he *doesn't* have one.
I'd shorten the second paragraph from the lead in favor of generalizations and remove references
Fixed, I think?
In video games is kinda short in respect to game appearances and important information so I'd suggest moving to history at least as a subsection.
Made a subsection of History
I'd rearrange a bit the reception paragraphs at least in terms of his role in the crossover game considering it's one of the most notable appearances. That's all.Tintor2 (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That one I'll leave simply because it's meant to be negative about the campaign, then negative about PASBR (since it's such a big ref) and then positive about both for flow?

Hope I got everything there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written
Verifiable with no original research
Broad in its coverage
Neutral
Stable
Illustrated

Good work. I'd trim video games more considering it doesn't really say anything about the thing.Tintor2 (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]