Talk:Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm 2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 05:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I will be doing this, but I'm a little busy due to real-life activities, so it may take a while for me to finish this review. All I can say though is so far so good: I'm not really seeing many problems with the article. Just a suggestion though: can at least some Japanese reviews be included in the article? You know, from sources like Famitsu and others. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't read Japanese, but a fellow user added Japanese sources to development of the article,

User:Narutolovehinata5.Tintor2 (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: What's needed though is Japanese reviews. Unless at least one or two are included in the article, this nomination might end up being a fail. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Done.Tintor2 (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 and Tintor2: After a request from Tintor2, I've included Famitsu's review, in addition to comments from the reviewers as part of the prose. I also corrected a minor formatting error by Tintor2 when including his original Famitsu score reference. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, will make a proper review soon, hopefully later. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A few typos and missing spaces (and in at least one case, an extra space) here and there. There are also inconsistent tenses throughout. Also, try replacing the word "good" with a more specific synonym whenever possible. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

   @Narutolovehinata5: I've done my best to address the faults, at request from Tintor2 as he isn't a native English speaker. If I've missed anything or created more problems, please tell me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   See comment below. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just fix the minor issues in the article and this will pass. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: @ProtoDrake: The following sentence does not have a citation: "Clearing the story mode unlocks an additional "fragment" chapter detailing Sasuke's team's failed capture of Killer Bee, following their alliance with Akatsuki." This is the last issue that needs to be addressed before the nomination passes. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Added a reference.Tintor2 (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm happy to now say that this is a pass. Congratulations. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)