I just did an FAC review for the first game not too long ago, and it seems like a very interesting subject. I'll be willing to have a look at the series article here. Hopefully I should have a full review for you by the end of the day. Red Phoenixtalk 12:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Sakura Wars is a Japanese steampunk media franchise created by Oji Hiroi and developed and owned by Sega. Does Red Entertainment not count as a developer? They're listed in the infobox to the right.
That was a later addition.
While the series has seen continuity in the main actors who could both act and sing as well as composer Kohei Tanaka, several other designers, programmers and animation studios would be employed through a number of games. Confusing verb tense.
Rewrote this part in light of the current prose content.
Games
The remake included additional voice acting, redone graphics and battle system based on later entries, and new scenarios. Two issues here: 1. the verb tense of "included" is wrong if the remake game exists today; use the present tense. Secondly, the addition of "and new scenarios" at the end makes this one sentence a run-on. I would rephrase to avoid this.
Both fixed, I hope.
Sakura Wars 2: Thou Shalt Not Die was released in Japan in 1998. A 2006 Japanese PSP release of Sakura Wars and Thou Shalt Not Die was scheduled for release in North America, but was cancelled. Wait, I thought we said that both of the first games were ported to newer systems? Was this actually ported?
That was a later editor reworking the section and adding that. I've done another rework.
I would link Windows in the second paragraph; I don't think this one use would constitute WP:OVERLINK.
Should be fixed with the rewrite.
In addition to the main series, numerous spin-off games covering multiple genres were released, all with the "Dramatic" moniker of the main series. What does this mean?
I've removed the "Dramatic" bit.
Why aren't the spinoffs listed in the release timeline? If we want to keep it as just main releases, the header needs to be changed to reflect this.
I've reworked it. Basically, since there's over twenty different spin-off games at a guess, it seemed silly to include them all. I've changed to a different list style.
Recurring elements
Make sure we link the word steampunk at least once in the prose.
Done.
The sequel expanded the number of actions to six, and included cinematic attacks. Actions per turn, or to select from?
Choices made during LIPS sections directly impacted character performance in battle. Again, if the game still exists, they "impact", not "impacted".
Sorted.
History
It's a minor nitpick, but when you have multiple references look at reordering them so they're in number order. It looks nicer and makes more sense.
That was a slip.
Because of lack of interest from publishers, Hiroi shelved the project until he was approached by Sega vice president and Shoichiro Irimajiri approached Red Company about developing a new project for the in-development Saturn. You have two verbs here.
Sorted.
Red Entertainment was bought by Chinese company UltaZen in 2011, with Sega regaining the Sakura Wars property. Do we have the right verb here? "Regaining" implies that Sega lost it and got it back. Did they "retain" it, where though Red was sold Sega kept the rights?
Rewrote it.
Sega tried localizing the game at one point, but were stopped during the concept approval stage for unknown reasons. Avoid using passive voice if they are the ones who stopped it, and one would presume they were unless someone else stopped them.
Rewrote it.
This was because Sony classed Sakura Wars as a text novel, making licensing for importation and translation difficult the initial rejection The last part of this sentence is confusing; please rephrase.
Done my best.
A Hangul translation of So Long, My Love was published in South Korea by Sega in 2006. This is confusing; was the game translated into the Korean language? According to our article, Hangul is the Korean alphabet, not the language.
Fixed.
Reception and sales
I'd try to do something with the table. Maybe at least call it "Famitsu and Metacritic review scores" in the table header. As it stands, it's nice to have some scores, but it's from so few sources that it should at least be noted. I understand why there are so few reviews available, but we should at least be up front that it's not really a broad cross-section of reviews in this way.
It's a template style I picked up from Ace Attorney, but since
Sakura Wars 2 remains the best-selling title in the series, with over 500,000 copies sold on the Saturn alone, making one of the console's best-selling titles in Japan. I think there's an "it" missing in here.
Fixed.
At the 1998 Animation Kobe event, Sakura Wars 2 was awarded in the "Packaged Work" category. What were they awarded? This reads a little odd.
Did my best to rewrite this.
No prose concerns in the "Related media" section
Images
File:Sakura Wars V LIPS gameplay.jpg and File:Sakura Wars 3 gameplay 2.jpg need to be more specific in the "Portion used" and "Purpose of use" fields for their FURs. Both use the full screenshot and are used to illustrate that particular part of the gameplay in the game. "Illustrate Wikipedia article" is not a satisfactory fair-use rationale on its own.
Did my best here.
The description in the article for File:Sakura-taisen-cafe.jpg should note this is a cafe pictured. It doesn't appear to be a store.
Fixed.
Consider adding alternative text to your images so people with screenreaders or who are visually impaired can know what is in the images of the article.
Done.
Sources
Is AnimeNewsNetwork a reliable source?
Yes, I've used it in other articles. It specialises in anime reporting, and is used in GA and FA articles related to the subject.
Same goes for andriasang.com
The website was run by a reputable journalist, Anoop Gantayat, and has been accepted in other video game-related GAs and FAs.
Be consistent with linking websites and publishers across all occurrences cited.
I've linked all the Anime News Network links, but Andriasang.com doesn't have its websites.
That should be it. Let's start there and see where we go. Overall, a nice job. Red Phoenixtalk 13:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Phoenix: I've done my best to address the issues you raised. Some of them were due to later edits, but many were definitely my bad. I hope the article looks better. I want to leave this series on a high note. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ProtoDrake: It looks good, but now I have to raise objection to the way the Main series subsection has been handled. We now have a bulleted list with the games, with a box next to it with another bulleted list of the games. That's quite redundant. Furthermore, by putting the games with their prose material in a bulleted list, we wrecked the sentence fluency because just about every sentence after the first starts with "It was..." Per MOS:LISTBASICS, "Prefer prose where a passage is understood easily as regular text. Prose is preferred in articles because it allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context in a way that a simple list may not. It is best suited to articles because their purpose is to explain." The prose was actually a better way to handle this. I'm okay with the bulleted list in the box if we restore the prose of the section, but as it stands now, it doesn't make sense because it all seems redundant and repetitive. Red Phoenixtalk 19:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ProtoDrake: No worries. I gave the prose a quick copyedit to remove minor errors. It looks pretty good now. Thanks for the quick responses, and I'm ready to pass the article. Nicely done. Red Phoenixtalk 19:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]