Talk:Mega Man X2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hahnchen (talk · contribs) 19:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written throughout, even plot and gameplay sections were easily readable

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

   Suitable identifying art and gameplay screenshot. However, a screenshot depicting some action and enemies would be preferable to Megaman X alone in an enclosed room. Considering the development and reception sections, an additional screenshot demonstrating the C4 capabilities would be welcome.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a very good piece of work. It's a well researched article and I'm impressed that you've gone and found sourcing contemporaneous with its original release. I would consider refactoring the reception section away from one paragraph on positives and one on negatives, to one that focuses on individual facets - for example, I'd have grouped the C4 reception together. It'd be nice to find some sales figures for the games, although it's understandable if they can't be found. But this is easily a GA, and better than some of our FAs too. Well done. - hahnchen 19:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)