Talk:Shin Megami Tensei: Nine

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shin Megami Tensei: Nine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 02:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I will take this article! I will be by with my review soon. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"Navigation round environments" in the gameplay section should probably be something like "Through"  Done from the lead "The concept for Shin Megami Tensei: Nine was born from staff discussions about how to make an online Shin Megami Tensei game, beginning development in 2001. was the first Megami Tensei title for Xbox, and the first to fully utilize 3D graphics. " - Something wrong here  Done from the lead "Initially planned as an online game, Nine was initially split into single-player" - one too many initially's  Done the lead says there are 9 moral alignments, but the plot goes into only three endings, why is that? My understanding is that there are law/neutral/chaos endings, and then you can be a good or bad (or neutral) person within each alignment. So when you combine law/neutral/chaos with light/neutral/dark, you get nine. in the development section "custmoizable player avatar" - misspelled  Done "The addition of Umetsu was part of how Atlus was pushing to distinguish the game from its predecessors" - this sentence needs to be rewritten.  Done "One of the prevalent issues was adjusting" - The sentence starts with the word "one", then discusses two things  Done "The addition of Umetsu was part of how Atlus was pushing to distinguish the game from its predecessors" - needs rephrasing, awkward currently  Done When and if this article goes to featured article candidacy, the focus should be on expanding the article throughout and giving more detail in each section, especially development. Prose-wise however, the flow is excellent.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	formatting looks good, I would expand out the lead into three paragraphs or just reformat it.  Done The gameplay section could use some more wikifying of gameplay terms: for example, things like an active time battle system are described but not wikilinked and that would be useful for the reader.  Done otherwise categorization and Wikifying all seem well done
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Some of the references don't list their author or their websites publisher. I'll take a look at this, but this doesn't seem to be a criteria for GA. also can you clarify the reliability of IT media, The gaming intelligence agency, Japan game charts, and Geimin.net? ITmedia is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Foreign language. Geimin just collects data from Famitsu and Media Create, and is frequently cited by RSs (do a search for "geimin" in the RS custom search engine for examples). I don't know about The GIA or Japan Game Charts, will have to investigate further. The GIA seems to have experienced staff: Andrew Vestal has written for PCMag, RPGamer and GameStop; Jay Rachel Edidin has written for Kotaku, Wired and Comics Alliance; and Nich Maragos has written for PCMag and 1UP.com, in addition to having industry experience, having worked for Atlus USA and Nintendo of America. Can't find anything speaking for Japan Game Charts being a reliable source, so I have removed it.
	2b. 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).	Four references came back with errors when I did the check links search, but they are all archived, as are all of your references. I think this is due to a check links error, and nothing to do with anything you have done, so your references all seem to be functional and archived. now this is just personal preference, but I've always believed that subsections should have references. I see you have one reference, it would be good to have ones of the ends of the paragraphs so that way we can doublecheck the plot, but again this is not mandatory. I checked several references from different points throughout the article and it all cases the references lead to information from reliable sources as indicated in the article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	most every sentence has an in-line citation, and no sentences that are controversial lack one.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I ran the copyright violation checker and found no matches of any kind.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The talk page of the article contains a list of references that could be useful in building the article. Please look at that list and make sure none of them have been left out that may prove useful  Done Looked through them, all were already in use in the article. Also, please look and see if there are more Japanese reviews. What does 4gamer think for example? I have been doing some searches for "真・女神転生 NINE" レビュー using the RS custom search, but can't find anything. A 4gamer review does show up, but it's for Shin Megami Tensei: Imagine, the game's online follow-up. look and see if there are more scores given by game reviewers, because otherwise it seems silly to have a template for game scores with one magazine.  Done Good point, I'll comment it out for now - if we do find more reviews with scores, we can just make it visible again.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is very concise; there's no problem in this area.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	there are no signs of editorialization, and both the good and bad sides of the game seem to be well represented.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Other than the nominators own edits, the article is very stable and of a high-quality with no disputes active.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The games cover as a weak fair use rationale, seems totally generic. The fair use rationale itself states that it can be expanded to become more detailed, so please specify its use. Let me know if you have any questions about this.  Done
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The games cover being listed as "cover art" is not a great caption; better to have either a better explanation, like that it's the "original Japanese XBox release cover", or no caption it all.  Done I think it's good to have some sort of caption, to make it clear that it's cover art and not art from a promo poster or something. The gameplay image is very unclear, and take some study for those unfamiliar to see who are the protagonist and where the enemy is. I would either add a new image that is cleaner, or say exactly where everyone is in the picture when you mention them. I tried to clarify the caption. Is this better?
	7. Overall assessment.	I will put the article on hold for seven days; if you begin work on it and find you need more time, let me know. I'm also available in case you have any questions or any issues arise.

@Judgesurreal777: I think I have addressed everything now.--IDV^talk 10:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@IDV: Fantastic and speedy work. Passed! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Shin Megami Tensei: Nine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905131740/http://www.nex-ent.co.jp/contents/popup/consumer09.html to http://www.nex-ent.co.jp/contents/popup/consumer09.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.feijapan.jp/works.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/features/shin-megami-tensei-nocturne
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150524032859/http://www.cave.co.jp/games/shin-megami-tensei_en to http://www.cave.co.jp/games/shin-megami-tensei_en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)