Talk:Shin-chan: Me and the Professor on Summer Vacation

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Tsūjun Bridge

• ... that a key principle in developing the graphics of Shin-chan: Me and the Professor on Summer Vacation was avoiding incongruity between its detailed in-game environment and its cartoon source material? Source: 1
  • ALT1: ... that several in-game locations in Shin-chan: Me and the Professor on Summer Vacation are based on real places, including the Tsūjun Bridge (pictured)? Source: 2
  • ALT2: ... that Sacco Saito, who performed and arranged the theme song for Shin-chan: Me and the Professor on Summer Vacation, was not told the content of the game until after the song had been recorded? Source: Memories Record Book: This is the Memory of the Creators

• • Reviewed: 56 Beaver Street
  • Comment: Sheer length of the title on this one necessarily required shortening to meet the 200 character limit.

Created by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC).

• Article nominated within several days of creation. Article has over 1,500 characters in prose and is neutral. QPQ has been done. Earwig picked up a 50% violation but it's an error as most of the "copyright violations" is from the long title of the article. ALT2 is the most interesting in my opinion. Image used is free and in article. Plot section is entirely unsourced; Travel "Material's" Book -MEMORIES- needs to follow MOS:JAPAN#Titles of media. Once those can be fixed I think the article is good to go. lullabying (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • One more thing; the title of the article may have to be shortened to Shin-chan: Me and the Professor on Summer Vacation per WP:SUBTITLE. lullabying (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    • @Lullabying: I'll leave the question of the article title to another day, but I've corrected title of companion book. Plot section is uncited per MOS:PLOT. Morgan695 (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
      • If we go with ALT2, the source listed in the nomination needs to follow MOS:JAPAN#Titles of media. Then I will pass it. lullabying (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
        • @Lullabying: Done. Morgan695 (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
          • Good to go. lullabying (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shin-chan: Me and the Professor on Summer Vacation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 00:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll call dibs on this one as it looks interesting. Not a game I'm familiar with personally, but it looks like a neat one. The article looks really good on a cursory review, but I'll have some specific feedback for you shortly. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

So, this looks really good. Nice work. I don't usually use templates for these, but I want to demonstrate that I've reviewed for all of the criteria:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Comments below. Really, the only concern I have has to do with sectioning.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   As a subject matter expert when it comes to WP:VG/RS, these are reliable sources, including the Japanese ones. A pass through the copyvio detector showed no real issues; those that did flag are simply because of the game's long title. No signs of OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As per MOS:VG, we have the base sections covered: development, gameplay, and reception. Detail is significant enough to meet the MOS.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Appears to meet WP:NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Edit history is stable.

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

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

   Images have appropriate rationales (I even marked them as reviewed for possessing rationales), and even have alt text. That is fantastic!

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Let's discuss the sectioning, but I think we'll be passing this very shortly.

A couple of points of feedback:

• Only sourcing question I had was with the Japanese reviews. I'm presuming you have already, but did you check to see if the reviewers have names? I don't read Japanese so I can't determine, but I just wanted to be sure we're covering all the bases.
  • I've double checked and the 4Gamer and Famitsu writers are respectively credited mononymously as "Tamako" and "Nishikawa", which is not an uncommon practice in the Japanese enthusiast press, but I think it would just create confusion in the article if it stated "Tamako of 4Gamer..." or what have you. Morgan695 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I can let that go. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, so let's talk sectioning. The one issue I have is with how much things are broken up into sections and paragraphs. While I understand the principles of doing small sections in order to divide up every concept, articles read with better fluency if we consolidate smartly. Namely, here are the changes I would suggest:
  • Remove the subsections from Reception, and take the sales statement and make it the first sentence of the first paragraph. It still fits the reception mold: how a product sold is the ultimate measure of how it was received by the public, and it can still be followed by the Metacritic sentence as that is a measure of how it was received by the press. The opening paragraph then fits as an introduction to the section.
    • Done. Morgan695 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Condense the last paragraph of Release into the paragraph above. We talk about all the languages the worldwide release was in in that paragraph, then do a separate paragraph for its release date. That just seems excessive and segmented.
    • Done. Morgan695 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Consider combining the Planning and Production subheaders of development, and combining the two Production paragraphs together. They would possess better flow and still read sensibly in such a manner.
    • Done. Morgan695 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Overall looks really good. Let me know when you have looked into my feedback points, and I'm fully anticipating I'll be passing this article in a very short amount of time. Nicely done. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Red Phoenix: Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Quick on the draw. Passing now. Well done. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)