Talk:Mega Man X (video game)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Altava (talk · contribs) 03:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Hello. After reading the prior review, I've opted to provide the second shot at this article's GA status. Just looking at it is... promising. We'll see how things turn out from here. Starting review now, should finish in the near future. Emmy Altava 03:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   As far as I am aware, Amazon is not a well-liked source. Is it replaceable, by any chance? Joystiq isn't stellar either, but I'd say it's mostly fine here... however, the one for the iOS version cites Andriasang, a reliable source. Why not just use that?

 Done ~ Hibana (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The closest thing to an argument is the GAN1, but even that seems to have been handled civilly. No stability issues present.

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Rationales all seem to be in place, those little fair use templates are there, and images are <160k. No apparent obstacles.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   I think that the caption for Armadilo stage running.jpg might be a touch long. That's not my issue, though; aggregates are generally handy to have in review infoboxes. This article doesn't list one... however, GameRankings offers one, so it might be worthwhile to add it. I'd do it myself, but I don't know if there are any special rules regarding games of this age, so I'll give you the opportunity to object if I'm wrong.

 Done ~ Hibana (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Essentially passed, I merely need answers to two comparatively minor points.

Article has passed GAN. Congratulations! I'll update the necessary areas momentarily. Emmy Altava 21:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Cursory review completed. Source and prose reviews imminent. Emmy Altava 03:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Citation reliability review completed. Emmy Altava 04:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Prose review: lead and story: no significant problems, minor quirks remedied. Emmy Altava 05:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Prose review: gameplay: mostly fine. One question: what is 'ride armor'? The article has mentioned it a couple times now, first in reference to Vile but later for mechs used by X himself. Are they good? Bad? Is it a generic metal? A byproduct of the creation of the Reploids? Emmy Altava 06:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Prose review: development and reception: mostly fine. There are a few typos in a quote regarding Super Play's review; are those in the review themselves, or the error of one transcribing the review onto Wikipedia while tired? Emmy Altava 06:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Prose review complete. Article has essentially passed GAN... but I'd like answers to the two points above. ("What is Ride Armor?" and "Does Super Play have a proofreader or were the typos user error?".)Emmy Altava 07:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. See if this works. ~ Hibana (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)