Metroid: Samus Returns has been listed as one of the
Video games good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 4, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Should we copy the Plot section from Metroid II: Return of Samus and replace this Synopsis section with it? I am going to, but feel free to change it back if there is a reason it should not be done. SnowGolem1238 ( talk) 21:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Seems like people are confused, and think that this game is going to be developed by Nintendo EPD. Outside of the music composers and producer, the game was fully outsourced to MercurySteam, and none of the citations used here claim otherwise. There is no difference between this and games like Donkey Kong Country Returns and Hyrule Warriors. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 23:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The reviews for Samus Returns are coming out today, so I added plenty of them (review score) in the
reception section. The prose for those reviews will be added later. The {{clear}}
template should be removed once the prose is added. –
Hounder4 13:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
This game features non-saving checkpoints, [1] unlike all previous ones in the series. Is this worth adding to the "Gameplay" section? Glades12 ( talk) 13:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
References
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lazman321 ( talk · contribs) 15:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
I will review this article for you.
That's all for prose. I do like the use of illustrative quotes throughout the article, and it's overall well-written. Lazman321 ( talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
Since the list of references does follow the guidelines, the article ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The Metro source should ideally be replaced by a better source, as Metro is considered unreliable as per WP:METRO. My two recommendations are [3] and [4]. 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.
That's about it for reliable sources. I am allowing the Business Insider and the AXS sources to be used. Lazman321 ( talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
With a copyvio score of 14.5%, the article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
The article never strays off-topic. As such, this article does now ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
I added more to the section and gave some more neutral sentences in parts. GamerPro64 02:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
There are no active edit wars or content disputes. As such, this criterion does ✓ Pass. Lazman321 ( talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
Metroid: Samus Returns has been listed as one of the
Video games good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 4, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Should we copy the Plot section from Metroid II: Return of Samus and replace this Synopsis section with it? I am going to, but feel free to change it back if there is a reason it should not be done. SnowGolem1238 ( talk) 21:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Seems like people are confused, and think that this game is going to be developed by Nintendo EPD. Outside of the music composers and producer, the game was fully outsourced to MercurySteam, and none of the citations used here claim otherwise. There is no difference between this and games like Donkey Kong Country Returns and Hyrule Warriors. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 23:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The reviews for Samus Returns are coming out today, so I added plenty of them (review score) in the
reception section. The prose for those reviews will be added later. The {{clear}}
template should be removed once the prose is added. –
Hounder4 13:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
This game features non-saving checkpoints, [1] unlike all previous ones in the series. Is this worth adding to the "Gameplay" section? Glades12 ( talk) 13:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
References
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lazman321 ( talk · contribs) 15:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
I will review this article for you.
That's all for prose. I do like the use of illustrative quotes throughout the article, and it's overall well-written. Lazman321 ( talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
Since the list of references does follow the guidelines, the article ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The Metro source should ideally be replaced by a better source, as Metro is considered unreliable as per WP:METRO. My two recommendations are [3] and [4]. 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.
That's about it for reliable sources. I am allowing the Business Insider and the AXS sources to be used. Lazman321 ( talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
With a copyvio score of 14.5%, the article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
The article never strays off-topic. As such, this article does now ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
I added more to the section and gave some more neutral sentences in parts. GamerPro64 02:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
There are no active edit wars or content disputes. As such, this criterion does ✓ Pass. Lazman321 ( talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)