Talk:Street Fighter X Mega Man/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 20:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a pretty interesting article, so I'll put my name on this one to review. I'll have some feedback for you here soon. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 20:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Notes to look at

There are some improvements that I feel have to be made in order for this article to be worthy of GA status. I'll start a list below.

• Usually game articles have four main sections that are required for depth: gameplay, plot, development, and reception. Now, I'm glad to see this article has the real-world categories of development and reception, but why isn't there a plot section? It can be a short, one-paragraph section, but I feel a plot summary is necessary to meet the depth criterion.
• Why is the reception box collapsible? I don't see why it shouldn't show by default.
• Overall, the lead section reads rather weak. Realistically, the lead should mention something from every section, so a brief mention of its development, reception, gameplay, and plot (and perhaps a note about music, too). Two paragraphs is probably an ideal amount for this article, but the second one is quite short and should be expanded.
• The last paragraph of the gameplay section has no citation. What's it cited to?
• What is "Capcom-Unity"? Clarify in the article if there is nothing to link to.
• This article could really use a copyedit for sentence fluency, grammar, and proper punctuation use. It reads very choppy in some points, such as the lead.
• References seem okay, though I haven't done spot-checks. What makes this a reliable source?

This should get you started; overall I can see a need for some polish to be applied here. This is a short article and rightfully so, but could use more and some touchups, too. I'll put it on hold for now until some progress is made, and I'll be glad to provide more specific feedback as need be. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix: the game doesn't really have an extensive plot. I have no idea why the VG review box doesn't show by default. I'll clarify the rest.Lucia Black (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, what can we say about the plot? Even if it's something as simple as the premise of the game, it'll be important to have to help understand the story. Does the website provide anything about the game's backstory? Does playing the game itself do it? If not and there really is no plot, can that be mentioned in the article? This is going to be one of the sorts of things our readers will expect; heck, if reading the article made me curious about the plot, imagine what it will do for other readers as well. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I found the plot premise directly from the file when you download the game. And no, there is no plot provided during gameplay. The website doesn't really give much of a backstory either. I know it made you "curious" but not all games have a plot, especially with cross over series.Lucia Black (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Then that needs to be specified, preferably with a source. Otherwise the article seems incomplete, as it would be expected to have such a section and discuss the backstory to an extent. I'm okay with the "Premise" section, but it needs a bit of fleshing out. Perhaps if there's anything about how the developer intended the story to spin off, or anything like that, addition of such detail with sourcing would help to develop this. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You know, not every game especially a fan game has this kind of information. Even if i did, it would not fit into the premise, more like development information. The developer previously stated that it is not "canon" to previous Street Fighter or Mega Man games. again, this is a crossover.Lucia Black (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, and what does being a crossover mean to plot? I'm not asking that as a question from me; I'm asking that as a question from a reader who may not know why crossover fan-made games may not have a plot line, or what the extent or premise of the game is. Remember, you and I are video game experts, certainly, but not everyone who reads a Wikipedia article about a video game necessarily knows what we do; I try to always assume as an article reviewer that those reading the article, no matter how ingrained into the video game culture it is and obscure it is to the rest of the world, that anyone may read it and need to know these details. Think of the reader and state the obvious; certainly mentioning that the plot is non-canon to either series is relevant to the premise section and a comment from the developer can go there. It could go either there or in development and would be appropriate for either, but if you place it into premise, I think it does better for subject depth than it does in the development section. Readers will be expecting to know about a plot if they're not familiar with the concept of many fan-made games; giving those factors will help them to understand.

@Red Phoenix: Most crossovers aren't canon or event about a story or need to state they are, especially capcom vs. series. its not something that comes to question, especially if it was originally a fan game. I know its something to consider, but i really don't know how much to expand. a good example of a cross-over game without plot is Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars (a featured article). I'll see what i can do, but if i can't find information to further detail any plot (which is obvious just by reading the premise itself) it would be a shame to have it as a factor against GA nomination.Lucia Black (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Such is a good example of how one can do it, yes, but there's a fundamental difference in that the linked article has a very deep, fleshed-out gameplay section, whereas this article does not (and the amount of content relevant for it may not warrant one much larger if there has not been significant reliably-sourced coverage.) The issue here is that with the section as it is, there is simply not enough here to meet criterion 3a of the GA criteria; that the article is broad in its coverage. Certainly some subjects will contain larger amounts of content when compared to others, but there does need to be a level of depth on the subject material covered. Keep working on it, and get the copyedits and proofread in place.

If you would like, we can ask for a second opinion on gameplay and plot depth.Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 17:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, i would like a second opinion. i could cover gameplay extensive. but i don't agree that gameplay coverage has to be covered extensively in order for no plot to be acceptable.Lucia Black (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Very well, I have placed up a request for a second opinion. I'm sure the assistance of another experienced editor can help to evaluate how well and what this article needs to meet criterion 3a of the GA criteria. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I've also notified the Video Games Wikiproject in the hopes we may find a second opinion reviewer for this soon and keep the discussion from going stale. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 17:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually gave it a read, assuming that it had no review. I suppose I'll have to be more careful about that in the future. :P

What I observed are:

1. The article says that the stages aren't wholly original; does this refer exclusively to the fact that they take inspiration from Street Fighter, or are the stages also based on Mega Man stages?
2. The body of the article doesn't state the name of the patch as it does in the lead.
3. There isn't a citation associated with the cheat codes sentence.
4. No referencing in premise section. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

As for the subject of gameplay expansion, I guess it all depends on how much noteworthy content you can add without going too far. It's worth a try. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(also that I came here was actually pure coincidence; I only just now saw your request for a second opinion :P) - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

SO if i'm assuming this correctly, the length of the premise is not an issue according to New Age Retro Hippie. So, if that counts, then we can leave that off as an issue.Lucia Black (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am curious as to whether it can be expanded further. Is it possible that it could also be merged into the Gameplay section which would then be renamed Gameplay and premise? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well that was the point for second opinion (i wish red phoenix was clearer on the matter when provided on WT:VG) but overall, i honestly can't expand the plot any further. trust me i have looked. I've even played the game myself, no cutscenes that provide any story.Lucia Black (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend merging the two paragraphs together. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@Lucia Black: With the second opinion feedback, and the added information that is in the article now, I would be satisfied with 3a being met, but barely. I'm still not comfortable with it myself, but I won't hold it back. To help make sure 3a is satisfied, I'll reorganize some things a little bit to use what you have now but format it in a way that will help readers to feel the information is comprehensively presented in the Premise and gameplay section (essentially, I'll do a little reordering to bleed together the premise and gameplay paragraphs just a tad so each supports the other and strengthens the comprehensiveness of both). I'll also do a little copyediting to help with grammar, name conventions, presentation, etc. to help some with the prose. The only issue really remaining after this, then, will be the lead. MOS:LEAD can really help with this, but I'll just throw out a couple of pointers that I think will help:

• For this article's length, I feel that two paragraphs would be appropriate, just as you have now. However, there's some room for expansion.
• Generally, if part of the article warrants a section or subsection, it should be mentioned in the lead. For example, there's not yet a sentence about the game's music in the lead, though it has a well-developed subsection.
• The lead says critics well-received the game, but from the look of the feedback and the reception section, it looks more like the game received mixed reviews.
• A little more about plot and development could also be said in the lead; maybe a sentence each, which will help to flesh it out.

I'll take care of some of the copyediting and touchup for you; there's actually quite a bit more that I see now with a second look, but a lot of those are simple touch-up notes which will just be quicker for me to do and get taken care of for you. The lead shouldn't be too hard to polish up; I'm glad to extend the hold period to make sure it can be a comprehensive article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

@Lucia Black: I really hate to keep this waiting. I've gone ahead and done more cleanup, and I think we can call it a pass at this point. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 04:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)