Talk:Shin Megami Tensei J/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Alexandra IDV (talk · contribs) 10:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 03:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this on in the coming days Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Reception is a bit lacking.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses two fair use images with proper rationale.

Lead

-Looks good

Gameplay

-"a map would automatically fill out to show the layout." How so?

The Famitsu source doesn't go into much detail about the automapping feature, but it's the kind where the map starts out blank, and as you walk around, the tiles you step on get filled out on the map. I have changed the wording a bit to hopefully make this clearer.--Alexandra^IDV 04:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-"they could eventually summon more and stronger guardian demons" I feel this could be rephrased slightly to improve flow.

Tried to rephrase it, how do you like it now?--Alexandra^IDV 04:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Release and Reception

-I'm admittedly a bit concerned by how small the Reception is. I feel notability is argued for here but the Reception is pretty lacking and mostly sourced to one site. Not sure what consensus is on that but I would like your input in any case.

Yeah, SMTJ is a small, Japanese-only, defunct mobile game, which limited me here - this is why I combined release and reception into one section. But I agree, so I went over all the sources again, and found some more bits from Comptiq and Game Watch to fill the reception out just a little bit further.--Alexandra^IDV 04:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely weak, but given the subject, I feel it's definitely enough to show notability. Should be fine enough, though if any more sources get found I'd definitely suggest adding them at the first opportunity. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

-Pretty solid article overall. Would like clarification on my last point before I make any judgements on its passing, but overall the writing is very well done. Will place this on hold for now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Thank you for the fast review! I have attempted to address your concerns with this edit, and look forward to your thoughts on it.--Alexandra^IDV 04:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandra IDV edits look good, happy to pass this article Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Thank you! And yes, if I find any more sources, I'll expand the reception further.--Alexandra^IDV 04:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]