Talk:Zero (Mega Man)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose can be tightened up to improve flow and cut down on redundancy. For example:

   • The first three sentences of "Conception and creation" can be condensed to two (maybe even one) sentence.
   • In the sentence about Zero's Z-saber, "that" would be a better fit here instead of "which" and mentioning "introduced" and "first time" together is redundant (I'd drop "first time").
   • This phrase, "Mega Man Zero's version of Zero's character", in "Design" is awkward. Maybe try "The Mega Man Zero version of the character".
   • I think some of the quotes can be paraphrased. Like Inafune's in "Conception and creation" and some of the ones in "Reception".

   I suggest you get a fresh pair of eyes to give the article a quick copy edit sweep.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources and citations all look good.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Reception could use some beefing up, but what's there is good.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Again, no problems.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Zero-mmx.png's and File:Zero-mmz.png's FUR could use some expansion. (See File:Rufus-sfiv.png and File:IvyConcept02.jpg for examples.) Right now, the two don't look to offer that much information.
   It might also benefit the article if one of the images was moved to another section with a caption to give more context.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, the article is in good shape. Once the prose is polished up and the image FURs strengthened, I'll be happy to pass the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

Trying to give a hand. Fixed the FUR. Paraphrased some quotes from conception and reception.Tintor2 (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Reduced the first few sentences of "Concept and creation" to two sentences, moved mega man zero image to "Design" section with added caption-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

And I paraphrased the quotes a tiny bit more, that should fix up the last issue there. The one in reception still bugs me a little, but there's no real way to paraphrase that cleanly and retain the same effect/meaning.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is better, but there are a few more issues I think need to be addressed.

• Image issues
  • File:Zero-mmx.png
    • The source link does not go to the correct image page. Also, the domain name changes.
    • Portion used = Yes? A crop would use a percentage or faction of the original image.
    • Other information = Capcom? Is this meant to say "Original copyright owned by Capcom"?
  • File:Zero-mmz.png
    • Same issues as above.
    • Also, it says "Mega Man X5" rather than a Megan Man Zero game.
• Some prose issues
  • The first sentence of "Conception and creation" still bugs me.
    • "but he wanted to create another one different from the original one." should be it's own sentence.
    • Maybe try this "He wanted to design a Mega Man different from the original one.
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph should be split too.
    • The bit about Capcom announcing the next title should be its own sentence.
    • Switch from passive voice to active. "The concept of Zero starring in his own series was proposed by Inafune, who had himself planned to go forward..." → "Inafune proposed that Zero star in his own series, and planned to go forward..."

Other issues are relatively minor and don't impact GA quality in my opinion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

The prose looks much better now. I hope the original meanings of the content has been retained.

The only thing left are the "source" and "portion used" sections of the images. Portion used is a necessary component to an FUR. Accurate sourcing is preferred, but I worry it will be forgotten if not addressed now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Corrected portion of the X image. Don't know where the Zero image is originated from.Tintor2 (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The images are almost there, but I'd hate to fail the article on such a trivial matter. I'll it a few more days. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

Fixed, I don't have the scans on hand unfortunately to confirm the exact page however. Sorry for the delay, work's been busting my butt. Will that info suffice?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I more than understand. The new info looks good. See second assessment below. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC))

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose looks better. Reception looks to be the weakest section on prose, but what's written meets the GA criteria in my opinion.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources and citations all look good

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Again, the reception could use some beefing up, but what's there is good

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images look good and meet the appropriate guidelines.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Passing article (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC))