Talk:Mega Man (1987 video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is in good shape aside from one issue I think would confuse the layman.
   The lead and development sections refer to the Famicom and NES in a way that implies that they are two different systems, when really they are just two different regional names for the same system. I would stick to the NES name and refer to the regional markets instead. For example, "Famicom home console market" → "Japanese home console market". I think this will better convey that the game was originally designed for a single system.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Things look good here.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Does a good job of covering the major aspects in sufficient detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Reads neutral to me

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Articles looks to be stable with no major changes occurring.

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):

   The FURs for File:NES Mega Man.png File:MegaManPoweredUp.jpg need some beefing up similar to File:MegamanBox.jpg.
   Is there a better image to use in place of the Powered Up cover? Perhaps a screenshot that shows the chibi-design, widescreen dimensions, and either a cutscene or new boss? Not essential, but something to think about.
   Another minor issue, the alt text for File:Keiji Inafune.jpg does not describe the image. Something along the lines of "a Japanese man in a black coat" or something similar.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article is in very good shape, but I'm putting it on hold until the prose and FUR issues above are sorted out.

   The above issues have been addressed. Good job. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC))