Talk:Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anarchyte (talk · contribs) 02:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll do this. Anarchyte 02:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Main review

Overall comments/Misc

• Copyvio rating: 45.1%% chance of violation of this page.

This is fine as most of the violated contents are basic words ("Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes", "Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix", etc).

• I suggest you install the duplicate link finder thing and remove some of the undue hyperlinks.

Lead

• Marvel vs. Capcom 2 is the first game in the franchise to utilize 2.5D graphics; although the character artwork uses traditional 2D-animated sprites, the backgrounds and visual effects are rendered in 3D.

Could this be worded a little differently? Such as; "The character artwork uses traditional 2D-animated sprites, the backgrounds and visual effects are rendered in 3D. This made Marvel vs. Capcom 2 the first game in the franchise to feature 2.5D graphics".

You might wanna hyperlink "2.5D" as some people may not know what it is.

Gameplay

• Assists come with a drawback; assist characters receive extra damage if stuck by the opponent.

Remove the "Assists come with a drawback;" section, it seems out of place and unnecessary.

• Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes contains a roster of 56 playable characters.

The reference says it's 55 and an "alternate costume". You may want to change that, just personal preference.

Development

• "The game was the first in the Marvel vs. Capcom series to combine hand-drawn two-dimensional sprites with three-dimensional backgrounds".

"The game was the first in the Marvel vs. Capcom series to combine hand-drawn two-dimensional sprites upon three-dimensional backgrounds" may be better.

I can't find this statement in the reference.

It's on the second page. MvC2 effectively combines hand-drawn two-dimensional sprites with cartoon-like three-dimensional backgrounds. Wani (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• The 4th paragraph seems very reliant on one reference.

Release

• Everything is fine here

Reception

• I fixed the only minor error here.

Sequel

• Everything is fine here

Overall review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: (Pass)

This is very close to a good article. After these errors are fixed I'll have no problems with passing it. Anarchyte 08:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I have two additional comments. Source 2 is an unreliable source. MobyGames should not be used. You should also use the work field (|work=) for 1UP.com, Polygon and Eurogamer instead of the publisher field (|publisher=) as they are websites and should be italicized according to MOS:TITLES. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer: Just a quick verification, would it be "|work=[[Engadget]]|publisher=[[AOL]]"? Anarchyte 00:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

With MOS:TITLE, Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized , so, if Engadget is a website of similar style, it should be italicized. AdrianGamer (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer: Is it safe to pass the review now? Wani has fixed all the issues I stated in the review. As for MobyGames, it's only being used for release dates, wouldn't it be fine to use? Anarchyte 03:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

MobyGames features user-submitted content. There may be some inaccuracies. So, no, it should not be used, even just for release dates. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Drat...it's gonna be a nightmare trying to find articles verifying the earlier dates. Oh well. I'll start looking. Wani (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

IGN lists the release dates in the 'Game Details' sections on the sides of their reviews, such as here and here. Is that okay to use? Wani (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, these could be used. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I've successfully replaced MobyGames with other sources (easier than I thought it'd be). Still need to replace the publishers with work fields. Wani (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Wani (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)