Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
I will review this article for you.
1 - Well written
1a - Clear and concise prose
...Fusion Mode, an extra hard difficulty setting which also features Samus's
Fusion Suit. to ...Fusion Mode, an extra hard difficulty setting which features Samus's
Fusion Suit.
...to employ the 3D visuals and a dual screen setup offered by the portable system. to ...to employ the 3D visuals and a dual-screen setup offered by the portable system.
Their approach was to add to aspects which improved upon the game's core concept of hunting the Metroids. to Their approach was to add to aspects that improved upon the game's core concept of hunting the Metroids.
Sakamoto hope to start from the original game's "simple and straightforward progression" and "spice up and excite the experience", to Sakamoto hoped to start from the original game's "simple and straightforward progression" and to "spice up and excite the experience",
The third paragraph in the lead section is too short. Either expand it or merge it with the second paragraph. It could be expanded with mention of the awards it won and was nominated for.
That's all for the Manual of Style, as the criteria only require five aspects of it to be met. The layout is standard, there are no words to be cautious about, the fiction is delegated to the plot section, and there are no lists.
Lazman321 (
talk)
19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The Metro source should ideally be replaced by a better source, as Metro is considered unreliable as per
WP:METRO. My two recommendations are
[1] and
[2]. Also, what makes Best in Slot a reliable source? It does not have an article on Wikipedia, is not listed on
Wikiproject Video games's source list, and I cannot seem to access it. For an award ceremony as famous as the
Golden Joystick Awards, there should be better sources to be found.
The gameplay section mentions the game being in 2.5D perspective, however, neither of the sources listed state this. Other than that, everything else seems to be backed up by their sources.
Lazman321 (
talk)
19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Verification checks out for the source. However, I do have one more concern. That is the genre of the game. Both the lead and the infobox state that Metroid: Samus Returns is an
action-adventure game. However, the gameplay section states that it is a side-scrolling
platform game. Looking at the sources, particularly the reviews, it appears that the consensus is that Metroid: Samus Returns is simply an
action game.
[3][4]. I recommend changing the listed genres in the article to action game.
It's like every other Metroid game. Even Dread with won Best Action Adventure game at the VGAs. It would be weird to list this game as only action and the rest action adventure.
GamerPro6405:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The reception could definitely be expanded. It could be expanded on details like combat, exploration, setting, etc. The reviews are pretty in-depth, and
Metacritic has a lot of reviews for the game catalogued like Electronic Gaming Monthly. Also, the video game score table has Game Informer and Nintendo World Report listed, both of which are not used in the reception section, even though they could be and it is not recommended by the template page to list scores of reviews not used in the reception section.
Lazman321 (
talk)
19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
It appears the reception section has been expanded. It's definitely more in-depth. I believe this article does now ✓Pass this criterion.
Lazman321 (
talk)
04:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
One half of the reception section seems to deal with appraisal and the other half seems to deal with criticism. If this game truly was positively received, shouldn't the section have mostly positive feedback, not just half of it?
Lazman321 (
talk)
19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Heya, I may have to disagree with you on this, Yes, the game received mostly positive reviews. However, Shouldn't the article at least mention some of the negative reception? (
WP:WEiGHT). Also looking through this article, I would say that its 3/4 positive, 1/4 negative. That is a good mixture, especially considering the reception the game received.
PerryPerryD (
talk)
01:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I do agree that the reception section should mention some negative reception from the critics. However, it should be proportionate to the level of criticism among reviewers. You are right that there may be less negative feedback in the section than I thought. Of course, there is still the issue of the reception section being too short, which is probably why the negative feedback stands out to me in the section so much. This problem may be ironed out once the reception section is expanded, though this remains to be seen.
Lazman321 (
talk)
03:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Lazman321 Looking back through this article, Each reviewer that is listed in the review scores list is mentioned to a degree, the way i see it. I cant find anything to add to that section
PerryPerryD (
talk)
18:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
And one more thing, Isnt the reception section usually not applicable to the "Neutrality" requirement? As reviews are in every sense of the words, not neutral. The way i see it, I believe that this article may be fine the way it is. However, as always, It is your call on this.
PerryPerryD (
talk)
18:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Both of the non-free images have valid rationales, and the image of Yoshio Sakamoto has a free license. This article does ✓Pass this criterion.
Lazman321 (
talk)
19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
6b - Relevant media
All three images are relevant. The cover art and the screenshot are direct from the game itself, and Sakamoto was involved in the game. This article does ✓Pass this criterion.
Lazman321 (
talk)
19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
7 - Verdict
@
GamerPro64: I am placing this article On hold for fourteen days. My main problem is with the reception section. It is too short and too mixed considering how much reviewers have praised this game. This is why the article is being put on hold for fourteen days instead of seven, as the reception section will probably take a bit to expand and rewrite. Good luck.
Lazman321 (
talk)
19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply