Talk:Trauma Center: Under the Knife 2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 21:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I am going to review this article for GA status. Many criterions will be easily passed, but some will take quite a bit to check over. Lazman321 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Well written

Clear and concise prose

The prose is clear and concise, even for someone who hasn't played this game before. It doesn't go into unnecessary detail into anything. There are some grammar issues I must point out though and recommendations on what to change it to.

• ...leading him to joining the HOA. to ...leading him to join the HOA.

• ...leaders Reina Mayuzumi and Patrick Mercer, while finding an ally in Mercer's stepdaughter... to ...leaders Reina Mayuzumi and Patrick Mercer. Meanwhile, Stiles finds an ally in Mercer's stepdaughter...

• Eventually the new Delphi... to Eventually, the new Delphi...

• ...kidnap Stiles and Angie, who quickly escape... to ...kidnap Stiles and Angie, who quickly escapes...

• ...control refinements and elements which helped contribute to its feeling of speed... to control refinements and elements, which helped contribute to its feeling of speed

Those are about it. Good job on the prose. Lazman321 (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lazman321: All sorted, I think. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually I got a better idea for my second prose request.

• Meanwhile, Stiles finds an ally in Mercer's stepdaughter... to Meanwhile, Stiles becomes allies with Mercer's stepdaughter...

Everything else has now been taken care of. Lazman321 (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Adherence to the Manual of Style

According to GA criteria, only five aspects of the WP:Manual of Style have to be followed in order for an article to be passed for GA status. These five are: lead section, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Let's look at whether or not this article follows these aspects of the Manual of Style.

• Lead section: The lead does summarize the key points of this game pretty well. It summarizes the game's gameplay, plot, development, reception, and overall what the game is. My only problems is the introduction of aspects not expanded upon in the body itself. These are the game not being released in Europe (this is only mentioned once in the body and it isn't a key aspect) and most of the staff being new (this isn't mentioned in the body).
  • @Lazman321: Did my best to adjust the lead to sort this issue. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Layout: The article follows a typical video game layout: a lead section, a gameplay section, a plot section, a development section (which mentions release which is allowed because the separate release section would've been considered too short), a reception section, and a references section. There is also an external links section that has the official websites, which are good external links. This one does pass.

• Words to watch: There weren't really any words that needed immediate attention. The only one that could use attention is the quotation marks around "repetitive" in the reception section. That could be interpreted as a scare quote. Other than that, this does indeed pass.
  • @Lazman321: I've sorted that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Fiction: The only statements of fiction are in the plot section and the lead section when talking about the plot. The article isn't written in an in-universe perspective and any fiction related to the game in the article is clearly marked as such. This one does pass.

• List incorporation: This one does not apply to this article as there are no lists and none of the prose needs to be turned into lists.

Most of the required MOS has been adhered to. Do some of the problems I have raised and this one will be passed. Lazman321 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

Proper layout of reference list

The easiest criterion to meet. The layout used for references is acceptable. Lazman321 (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Almost all the sources appear to be either reliable or primary. The only situational source used is Cubed3, but I believe that its current use is okay. This one does pass. Lazman321 (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

No original research

Citation 1 says that all games in the series combine surgical simulation with visual novel. While it could apply to this game, do you think you could find a better source that talks about this specific game. Citation 10 does not mention that there was demand from fans for a true sequel. It just says that users may have felt discomfort from using new hardware for a sequel of a game for the DS. Neither citation 10 nor 16 actually state that the staff though the production was in turbulence (or conflicting or complicated or whatever). Citation 16 does not mention the supposed "themes" of the music.

These are the original research problems I noticed. Please deal with them. Lazman321 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lazman321: This game's so obscure it's difficult to find anything to back up a statement about the series's story delivery beyond that summary article, so I had to adjust. The opening production statement was a translation clanger, and I've rechecked and adjusted to something that's hopefully accurate. The stressful production thing was again a translation clanger, and has been removed. As to the musical theme, it's on the article's page 2. I've also adjusted the lead. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

No copyright violations

With a copyvio score of 23.1 %, this one does pass. Lazman321 (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

Main aspects

In my source checking, I did not detect any main aspects that were neglected. This one does pass. Lazman321 (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Focused on topic

The article does stay focused on the topic at hand throughout. This one does pass.

Neutral

Most of the article is written objectively. All the reception that the game has received is properly attributed, sourced, and describes both the approvals and the criticism. This criterion does pass. Lazman321 (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Stable

There is no current content dispute nor an edit war going on currently. This one does pass. Lazman321 (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Illustrated

Properly tagged media

Both images are properly tagged as non-free and have non-free rationales. This one does pass. Lazman321 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Relevant media

Both images are relevant; one is the box art and the other showcases the gameplay. This one does pass. Lazman321 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Verdict and overall

@ProtoDrake: You have cooperated well with my requests. I have finished my review. I believe I don't have to put this on hold as I do know you will deal with the remaining requests in a timely manner. If you want, I can still put this on hold. Lazman321 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lazman321: Hope I've addressed all issues. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: You have addressed all the issues. This article has  Passed the GA criteria and will therefore be of GA status. Great work. Lazman321 (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)