Talk:Sakura Wars (1996 video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 10:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
"main heroines of the Flower Division" - the Flower Division hasn't been introduced yet. You need to explain to the reader what it is at its first usage.

"conversation, conversation" - I'd reword this but up to you.

"a group of women with spirit powers" - define spirit powers

the term 'Imperial Assault Force' gets used a lot. Do you think it would be appropriate to abbreviate it to IAF after the first mention?

"the team included three young Red Company artists. Two of the artists — Ryoma Kaneko and Naoki Morita" - I'm not sure I see the point of mentioning that there were three young artists (and define young) if you're only going to mention two of them. I'd cut out the middle and just say "the team included Ryoma Kaneko and Naoki Morita ..."

"worked on games for rival home console systems" - It would be interesting to know which ones, if that information is available

"The LIPS system really got going after ..." - this sounds particularly un-encyclopeadic

"As the character concepts had been firmly established before the design stage, Fujishima was able to create the characters with ease, creating them so players could easily understand what was going through their minds." - This needs copyediting and reworking. How about "Fujishima found it easy to create the characters as the concepts for them had been firmly established before the design stage." You'll have to explain the last part to me though. How do you create characters so that players can understand what's going on in their minds?

Wikilink the first instances of 'CGI' and 'steampunk'.

You've got "that blended real and fictional events" on one sentence, then "creating a blend of fantasy and reality" in the next. I'd say the latter is redundant.

"brought on board" in one sentence, then "come on board" in the next reads awkwardly. Change one of them.

"was the kind of request he had rarely received in his career as a composer, and so enjoyed the experience of writing it" - you're losing me here; what was unique about the request exactly?

#3, #2, #1 - see MOS:HASH

"it told a series of stories around events mentioned in Sakura Wars or the untold origins of the Flower Division members" - the way the word 'or' is used leads me to believe it only tells one or the other, whereas I'm sure the series actually tells both.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
I've always thought that placing page numbers after the inline references is an eyesore. I'd replace that system with Template:Sfn, but this isn't a fail point.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
This isn't a fail point, but I can't help but feel the dialog gameplay image would be a lot more appropriate if it had some actual diolog text in it.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Placing this on hold until issues are addressed. I'd nominate this for a copyedit if I were you, but overall it's very good. Freikorp (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: I've done my best to address grammar and spelling errors. As to the image, I can put in one with dialogue, but I was trying to use two screenshots from the Saturn original as the source I used only had dialogue from either the Dreamcast port or the PS2 remake. The citation page number issue wasn't lost on me, and I'll probably rewrite it, but it'll be a long process as I'm not used to using that style and there's a lot of article to get through. As to abbreviating "Imperial Assault Force", I wasn't comfortable doing that as there's no official abbreviation. But if you wish, I can do so. And yes, a copyedit would be well worth it. Edit: I've dealt with the image. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ProtoDrake: Looks much better. The only thing that really stands out now is you seem to have removed the first instance of 'Flower Division', yet it still appears elsewhere and is never actually clarified to the reader. I'd reinstate the first instance and instead clarify what the division is. Freikorp (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: Done. It actually works much better now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Happy to pass this now. Freikorp (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]