Talk:Radirgy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yashovardhan Dhanania (talk · contribs) 07:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions

Initial Observations

• Redundant use of Bullet hell elements in the Gameplay section
  • Radirgy is a vertically scrolling shoot 'em up with bullet hell elements in the first paragraph and The game features bullet hell gameplay elements, in the second. It does feel a bit odd there and copywriting might help.
    • Fixed
• No inline citation in the lead section. You can use some already present references or maybe add new references. (suggestion only)
  • See below

I will have a deeper look soon. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Notes

• The lead section should establish the notability of the article. It should discuss very briefly why the game is notable. Here, It's full of the history instead.
  • I believe the lead does establish notability. It is not a full history, that is detailed in the release section. I summarized each part of the article into the lead giving due weight when necessary. The most notable part of this game is it's release history, so that needs to be highlighted up front. If you have specific suggestions on how the lead can be improved, please suggest.
• A history section would be appropriate to discuss the history of the article. The release may be merged in that section (or as a subsection). However, the lead should not go too much into the history.
  • The only history of the game I could find was the release history. This game was only released in Japan so finding sources is very difficult. If you can find any, please let me know. As for the lead, see above comment.
• There are only 3 source for reception. Though not necessary, more reviews would help and you may find some more content as well.
  • These were all the reviews I could find. Again, this is an obscure Japan-only release. If you can find any more, please let me know.
• The gameplay section could see copy writing, it presently seems a bit too detailed. A concise gameplay summary is helpful rather than going into all the details. The rest may be discussed in a separate plot section.
  • I gave the section a copy edit to remove some of the details. Since the plot is short and not central to the game, I combined it into the gameplay section. It is acceptable to do this per WP:VGORDER.
• The lead section needs more citations
  • I disagree. It's not customary for lead sections to have citations unless there are quotes or controversial content that needs a citation. See any recent Good or Featured articles. This is because everything in the lead is based upon what is written in prose and cited there, which it is in this article.

Will put it on hold for you to work on these. Let me know if you think of anything else. Yashovardhan (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: Thank you for reviewing this article. I have addressed all your comments above. TarkusAB 02:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: thanks for fixing it so fast. My suggestion for the lead section was based on WP:VGORDER. However, you've a good point there. I'll accept this as GA! Good work! Yashovardhan (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyvivo issues.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No recent history of edit wars.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Fair use rationale clearly indicated.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Appropriate captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Good work with the article. Congratulations to all editors.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

• I will be starting the review soon. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)