Talk:Panzer Dragoon Orta/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Juxlos (talk · contribs) 08:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I will review this. Please provide 2-3 days in order to read through.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The second sentence of the "Plot" section feels too long to read comfortably - splitting would benefit legibility.

   The same for the first two sentences in the third paragraph of "Art and graphics"

   "Iva is given a necklace of his father's after his death" this reads awkwardly

   Good points! I've tried to smooth out these bits. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

   "would not be made if he were not involved." was not involved

   This seems like a stylistic variant (the irrealis Counterfactual conditional is sometimes written with "were" in this way), but I'll change it if you insist. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: , but see below

   C. It contains no original research:

   "Orta was the final Panzer Dragoon game until the 2020 remake of the original Panzer Dragoon." - any explicit source for this? The article mentions "revived with the announcement of remakes", but never mentions the remake's date. And also, might as well link the remake there if you mention it.

   For that matter, the citations seem to be pre-release interviews not explicitly stating the series being revived. I would argue "revived" is WP:OR here - it implies that the series regained popularity, which while may be the case is not mentioned in the source posted before the release itself.

   "For these projects, other companies took on the development and publishing, leaving Sega with minimal financial responsibility" - could you provide a quote from the 4gamer interview that led you to write this? I cannot find anything related to Sega's financial involvement here, at least with machine translation.

   To be clear, I didn't write any of this; I'm just trying to shepherd it through GAN. There's no article about the PD remake to link to; there isn't enough to say about it to justify more than a paragraph in Panzer Dragoon, which is where links to the remake currently redirect; I've added a link to that redirect. I don't like the word "revived" there, either; I've tried to de-peacock that language and added a more relevant source. The relevant line about publishing is about half-way through the interview: "僕がパブリッシャになっている理由は，セガさんが損をしないためです" ("The reason I'm becoming the publisher is so that Sega won't make a financial loss."), but I've just removed the sentence, which I'm not at all sure is relevant to this topic anyway. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Due to dependence on developer statements from interviews, could you attribute statements originating from interview statements more?

   I've added a few attributions from interview sources, and I cleared up something in the text that seems to have been misunderstood from one of the interviews. If there are specific spots that still bother you, could you point them out? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

   Looks good now, thanks. Juxlos (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   @Bryanrutherford0: First pass completed. Biggest concern for me so far is developer statements in interview being treated as direct fact. Juxlos (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

   Thank you for the review! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

   Issues addressed, passing. Juxlos (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)