Talk:Shin Megami Tensei IV/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 02:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this one a shot; I've never actually played a Shin Megami Tensei game other than Persona 4 Arena, and I'd like to learn a little about the series. Tezero (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 know I've seen it before, and I'm not necessarily objecting, but is NintendoEverything a reliable source? I have to ask; it doesn't appear at WP:VG/RS.
Optional for GA, but Reception could use more elaboration; none of the sources are even given individual treatment or quotes.
Why is Nintendo World Report italicized in the prose but not in citations - especially when Game Informer isn't either way?
" they can return to the game a variety of ways" - should be "in a variety", and what are some of these ways? Sounds interesting.
"the Samurai Flynn" - why is "samurai" capitalized? Does it mean something different in this game from in real life?
"In Easy mode" - I'd prefer introducing it more like "The game features an Easy mode, in which..."
Again, optional, but I'd like a screenshot that's a little brighter or can otherwise actually show what one of the demons might look like.
"reference through recurring" - "reference" as a mass noun is non-standard; please rephrase this sentence

That's about it; I'm not feeling too picky tonight. Ping me when addressed. Tezero (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done everything you cited, barring the reception section, and decided to delete the NWR reference. The reason I wrote it like that was, when I was reading the reviews, it felt like reading slight variations on the same statements about the game. By that I mean more than usual for reviews of a game that got mostly positive/negative reviews. Where applicable beyond the gameplay, I added differences of opinion, but they didn't seem striking enough to warrant their inclusion. I was using Tales of Symphonia as a template. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, ProtoDrake. As you know, I'm used to working on Sonic games, where critics can't seem to agree on anything other than they don't like what they see, so perhaps I'm out-of-practice with the general uniformity of critical opinion. Reception was only a suggestion, anyway, so I'll be passing this regardless. Nice work. (You didn't answer about NintendoEverything, but I'll leave it be.) Tezero (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little late now, but NintendoEverything seemed to be the only place I found the cited info. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]