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

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 22:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, why not; I'll do this one. Beats waiting idly for a call and putting around with neo-Nazis on /pol/ all day. Tezero (talk) 22:34, 24 June 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

• Is Otaku Study a reliable source?
• One of the sources was missing its publisher; very well formatted otherwise.
• I've added a "See also" to the "Games" section; remove it if you want.
• Oh, and I've also renamed that section "Content" because of the audio stuff. Again, revert if you wish.
• What are dresspheres?
• In the Creature Creator, does the player actually capture human/non-enemy NPCs, or just "recruit" them? In other words, main-series Pokémon, or Pokémon Mystery Dungeon?
• "more people in the younger generation" - unspecific
• "with various people" - whom?
• "reassembling the original assets, approvals and part of the redone high-definition data" - confusing
• "The gameplay needed to be heavily altered to bring it up to high-definition standards while keeping it faithful to the original releases" - Maybe this is all they say in the original source (haven't checked), but I'd expect them to go more in-depth. The reason I want such elaboration is that I don't see how gameplay changes, especially heavy ones, would be necessary for a cosmetic update.
• "It was also successful in North America" - Just the PS Vita version, or both?
• Not a big fan of the reviewer-by-reviewer organization style in Reception (creates/exacerbates arbitrary ordering and repetition), but that's fine for GA.

And... that's it. I'll put this on hold; nothing looks too difficult to hammer out. Take a look at one or both of my GANs sometime if you get the chance. Tezero (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all the issues, including rewriting and restructuring the Reception section. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I made a grammatical correction and added a link to the often overlooked Pokémon (video game series) article (it might constitute OR to mention this if the source doesn't - I haven't checked if it does - but I'm not about to hold a GA nomination up for that), but I see no further issues. Tezero (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]