Talk:Cyber Danganronpa VR: The Class Trial

Cyber Danganronpa VR: The Class Trial has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 12, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Video games: Visual novels Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the visual novels task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Atomas (0 participants)
PLAY: The Games Festival (2 participants)
FloodSim (1 participant)
Kunimitsu and Kunimitsu II (1 participant)
Blast Monkeys (1 participant)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (5 participants)
Free Internet Chess Server (9 participants)
Purple Francis (8 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants; relisted)
Yoshimitsu (4 participants; relisted)
Emote (3 participants; relisted)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Proposed deletion

this is my first time being an editor in wikipedia i don't need this proposal deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeanWill Games (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyber Danganronpa VR: The Class Trial/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 21:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judgesurreal777 Review

I will take this review. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Spelling, grammar, and prose is all concise to the point, and well written.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Formatted exactly as it should be.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	formatted very nicely, and as a bonus, even archives the references.
	2b. 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).	All references are from reliable sources, and nearly every sentence has a citation at the end.
	2c. it contains no original research.	As stated above, nearly every sentence is cited by a reliable source.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Ran copyright violation detector, and there are no detectable levels of plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	You know I was going to ask this, but is there any more material on this game? Is there anything about how this game could lead to more virtual reality games on the PlayStation, or from the series? Anymore development details on the influences of the creator, or their influences by other games in this game is creation? Not to my knowledge. My impression is that this was developed really quickly just to try out the technology, hence why it reuses part of one of the scenarios from the first Danganronpa game, so there would not be as much information available as for one of the main series games Always good to check.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Very focused, no extraneous detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There's no hint of bias in the writing of the article or of it's factual material.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Very stable, only nominator and one other appear to have edited the article recently.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The infobox image has a "note to the uploader", probably want to get ride of that. That note says that the "image has rationale" parameter should be set by patrollers or admins, so I'm not sure if I should be touching it. Good catch.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The second image could be clearer that the game is in a courtroom style, otherwise refuting characters testimony may not make much sense to someone skimming the article. Yeah, that makes sense. Done Excellent.
	7. Overall assessment.	Excellent work! Nice small Good Article, but keep an eye out, these can grow into articles able to reach Featured Status! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Ha, I don't know about that, but it sure would be nice. I'll probably at least be able to expand it a little once it gets released in the West, with whatever new coverage/reviews pops up then.--IDV^talk 02:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's give this a week and see how it goes. Let me know if you require any clarification or assistance in this review! Thank you for being patient and waiting for me to make good on the review what I owe you! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Judgesurreal777: All right, I replied to/took care of the things you mentioned above.--IDV^talk 02:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the supposed European release

Yes, there are articles about it having been rated by PEGI, but that is only an indication that it will come out in Europe eventually, and it's not on PSN. Please, find a reliable source writing that the game has been released in Europe before re-adding it.--IDV^talk 20:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]