Talk:Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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
[edit]Overall comments/Misc
[edit]- 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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]"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
[edit]Reception
[edit]- I fixed the only minor error here.
Sequel
[edit]Overall review
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
(Pass)
- Pass or Fail:
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)
- 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)
- Yes, these could be used. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:43, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @AdrianGamer: Just a quick verification, would it be "|work=[[Engadget]]|publisher=[[AOL]]"? Anarchyte 00:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)