Talk:Espio the Chameleon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The article uses a lot of pronouns. I suggest mix things up a bit with "Espio" and "the character" to improve flow and readability. I'll also give the article a light copy edit after your sweep to address the GAN issues.

   Done. Tezero (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

   The article is divided into too many subsections and gives undue weight. I suggest:

   • Combine "In the comics" and "In the anime" into a "In other adaptations" section
     • Done. Tezero (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
   • Remove "Merchandising" and "Critical reception" subsections and have the content all under "Cultural impact".
     • Done. Tezero (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

   The paragraph length is too varied. I suggest combining some shorted portions together to make larger paragraphs. For example, does every game appearance need a separate paragraph?

   Done. Tezero (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   What makes "Video Games Blogger" and "AnimeMate" reliable sources?

   • Never really thought about the first of those. I only used it because it was the most reliable-seeming thing on the Internet that listed all the characters in Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. With the second Olympics game, however, I was able to use the instruction booklet because my brother owns the game. What kind of source do you suggest I use instead? Tezero (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
     • GameSpot's Tech Info on the first game lists Espio's voice actor. That demonstrates inclusion. If you want a source that shows the character as a referee, then I'm sure a video review (maybe from GameTrailers) would show that in the footage. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC))
       • Done. Tezero (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
   • About AnimeMate, I realized that it didn't seem like the most reliable thing out there, but it was the only non-fansite I could find that verified the existence of the Espio plush toy (that piece of merchandise is too obscure for Amazon, I guess...). I don't think it should be a problem, though, because the site shows a picture of the plush toy, and you can't really fake something like that. Tezero (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
     • Since the picture is the only thing being used, I believe the usage is within reason. Keep in mind though, that others may not agree should the article come under review. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

   Some references are missing information:

   • Ref2 & 29 "Sonic Heroes". Xbox World & "Chaotix: 32X Review". Mega Zone - publishers?
     • Done. Tezero (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
   • Ref5 "Fast talking". PlayStation.com - publication date?
     • Done. Tezero (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
   • Instruction manual references should include info similar to a book. See {{cite book}}
     • Done. I used Template:Cite manual as I think that's the preferred template for use in video game-related articles. Tezero (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
   • Include the author if available for websites (if nothing else, "[PUBLICATION] Staff" will do), magazines (same thing), and comic books.
     • I assume you are referring to instances such as when IGN lists the author as "IGN Staff" when there is no other author. For all the sources used in this article, however, either there is an author or the source doesn't list authors. Tezero (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
       • That's fine. Not that big of a deal. I sometimes add "[PUBLICATION] Staff" when no author is listed at all, but I don't think it's strictly followed rule. It mainly let's others know that there is no author listed and it maintains reference formatting. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC))
   • Include the release year or date for video game references.
     • Done. Tezero (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
   • Include the broadcast network for television episodes.
     • Done. Tezero (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The major aspects are covered, but some beefing up in development and reception would be a good idea to maintain a qualtiy rating.

   I can only use what there is. This issue is especially unfortunate with this character, because characters generally get the most reception and interviews about them in their first game, but Espio's first game was a fairly obscure 32X game. Most of what I have is from Sonic Heroes, which was somewhat prominent. Tezero (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

   What's currently there is fine. Just keep in mind that the article might lose its GA rating should the quality bar raise in the future. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

   I've added anything I've found. There just isn't that much. Tezero (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Found another reception thing, this time from Electronic Gaming Monthly. Tezero (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrality looks good.

   Though I think "generally well-received" in the reception section should be changed to something like "received a mixed reception".

   Changed to "received mixed critical response" simply because using "received" and "reception" in the same sentence like that irks me somehow. Tezero (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stability looks good.

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

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

   File:EspioTheChameleon.JPG should be reduced as the file size is a bit big. Check out File:Mewtwo.png and File:Ivy Valentine.png for examples of sizes.

   Scaled to one-half of the previous size. It might look a little pixelated now, though. Tezero (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

   The fair use rationales, specifically the "purpose of use" sections, could use some expansion.

   Done. Tezero (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article looks pretty good, but lacks polish to pass GAN. I put the nomination on hold until the above issues are addressed.

   Let me know if you have any questions or need clarification here; I have this review watchlisted. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

   I addressed some of these issues. I'm not ditching you; I just don't have any more time to edit right now. Be back soon. Tezero (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

   Fixed all the concerns. Tezero (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

   I gave the article a copy edit sweep as well. The only issues I have left are the sourcing above and the reviewer quotes in "Cultural impact". I think some should be paraphrased to use more professional wording, specifically Sega Magazine's second preview.

   Once those are addressed, I'll pass the article. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

   Done. Tezero (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

   Everything looks good. I passed the article. Good job. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC))