Talk:13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 04:59, 13 July 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 will review this one for you. Lazman321 (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

1 - Well written

1a - Clear and concise prose

• "...who handled music for Vanillaware's past games..." to "...who handled the music for Vanillaware's past games..."
• "Battles pit Sentinels against Kaijuu..."; earlier you said "Kaiju". Which is it?
• "They also have different attack ranges and movement speed." to "They also have different attack ranges and movement speeds."
• "In 1985 Japan, Kurabe, Fuyusaka and Amiguchi..." to "In Japan 1985; Kurabe, Fuyusaka and Amiguchi..."
• "Tired with spending so long..." to "Tired of spending so long..."
• "...he originally wanted to handle the mecha and kaijuu designs..." to "...he originally wanted to handle the mecha and kaiju designs..."
• "...with the script writing and revision process..." to "...with the scriptwriting and revision process..."
• "...the recording team needed a dedicated work sheet showing which scene..." to "...the recording team needed a dedicated worksheet showing which scene..."
• "...Kaneko had to carefully sync voice clips with key words from the Thought Cloud..." to "...Kaneko had to carefully sync voice clips with keywords from the Thought Cloud..."
• "...praised the narrative delivery and artstyle of the adventure sections..." to "...praised the narrative delivery and art style of the adventure sections..."
• "...lauding its narrative and artstyle while again faulting the RTS gameplay as weaker overall." to "lauding its narrative and art style while again faulting the RTS gameplay as weaker overall."
• "...unforgettable experience and a "a unique..." to "...unforgettable experience and "a unique..."
• "...but cited the storytelling and adventure artstyle as the main reasons..." to "...but cited the storytelling and adventure art style as the main reasons..."

These were the prose problems I found. Lazman321 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lazman321: All of the above taken care of. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

One more prose problem I neglected to mention. Lazman321 (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Getting everything to work was a collaborative effort..." to "The voice acting took a collaborative effort..."

Prose is now taken care of. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion now. Lazman321 (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

1b - Adherence to the manual of style

The lead is sufficient, the layout is standard, there are no words that one has to watch out for, all fiction is clearly marked as such, and there are no lists. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

All references are clearly identifiable and are listed appropriately. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

2b - Reliable sources

Virtually all the sources used are reliable. All the primary sources are used appropriately. The only source I am a little concerned about is the Chinese Gamer.com. However, I don't speak Chinese and the source is only being used to source a release date, so for now I am letting it pass for now. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lazman321: I understand the concern. Gamer.com is a Taiwanese website which I typically use for things like release dates, press releases and interviews if they have them. It's the most reliable Chinese source I've found for this subject. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

2c - No original research

This one I am doing last as it is the most time-consuming criterion to review. Lazman321 (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Because of how busy in real life I am going to be, I won't be able to finish this review for a few days. I will try to have it finished by the end of next week. Lazman321 (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Finally have the chance to do this source check. Unfortunately, I won't be checking Japanese sources, despite me wishing otherwise. This is because I don't read Japanese, and the browser automatic translator, when translating Japanese, produces grammatical errors and hard-to-read text. As such, I am taking the Japanese sources in good faith.

Anyway, these are the statements that are not backed up by the listed sources:

• "...with up to six chosen characters using Sentinels..." — The amount of chosen characters was never mentioned.
• "There was an amusing range of reactions from the English cast when they got summaries of the game's overall plot." — The source states that the reactions "fell into three categories". This does not indicate a range of reactions.
• "...the usual joking and banter during in-studio recordings did not happen..." — Aside from a quoted remark from an actor that was taken from a recording session, the lack of joking and banter during remote sessions compared to studio sessions was never mentioned.
• "...a collaborative effort between Atlus, Sega, Vanillaware and Basiscape." — Sam Mullen did not mention Atlus during his twitter thread.
• "Doyon referred to 13 Sentinels as her favorite video game project up to that point in her career." — Technically, she said it was one of her favorites.

And that is about it. Lazman321 (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

All the original research problems have been taken care of. For now, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

2d - No copyright violations

With a copyvio score of 8.3 %, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

3 - Broad in its coverage

3a - Main aspects

The article is definitely broad in nature. It successfully mentions all the main aspects of the game along with expanding upon those aspects. I especially how detailed the development and release sections were. I don't think anything more has to be added to this article. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

3b - Focused

Despite how detailed this article is, at no point does it ever stray off-topic. All the information is related to the game in some way. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

4 - Neutral

The article is neutral. All opinions are clearly marked as such. Therefore, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"There was an amusing range of reactions from the English cast..." The word "amusing" should be removed. Whether something is amusing is an opinion and as such, the word should only be used as an attributed opinion to a person or company. Lazman321 (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

5 - Stable

The article hasn't been edited in five days. There are no ongoing edit wars or content disputes. As a result, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

6 - Illustrated

6a - Copyright tags

All non-free images have a valid fair-use rationale. The one image of a living person is under a free license. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

6b - Relevant media

The image used in the infobox is the cover art of the game. The images used in the gameplay section are screenshots from the game. The picture of a living person is Hitoshi Sakimoto, the leader of the music team. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion.

7 - Overall

I am placing this review  On hold for seven days. I see you have dealt with the problems raised in the prose section. Now all you have to do is fix one more prose problem, a neutral problem, and some source checking problems; and this should be good to go. Lazman321 (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lazman321: I've fixed the last grammar issue, and the original research. The number of players issue has been sourced using the Eurogamer review, but otherwise I just deleted them since they weren't essential. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Great work. This article has  Passed the GA criteria and shall be of GA status from this day forth. Lazman321 (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)