# Talk:Panzer Dragoon Orta

I don't understand the need for a compatibility section, and especially I am confused about the mention of an Xbox emulator. Love.Of.Knowledge 00:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Panzer Dragoon Orta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6DitmOtIJ?url=http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1 to http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1&cId=3162611
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://forums.xbox.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=16996521
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Panzer Dragoon Orta/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs) 21:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
An early-aughts game from Sega towards the end of its creative apex? Can't miss the opportunity. JOEBRO64 21:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: I'm sorry I haven't begun the review yet. I'll start as soon as I finish reviewing Aliens (film) at FAC, which will likely be tomorrow. JOEBRO64 22:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Review time:

As a general comment, I think the article really needs to be copyedited. There's a lot of "[word], [verb]ing"s, "[word], with [verb]ing"s, which were extremely distracting, for example.
The article's not consistent with date formats. Since it seems to be written in BrEng, I'd assume DMY is what you'll want to go with.
Panzer Dragoon Orta sold poorly... As far as I can tell, this isn't supported within the text itself.
Orta was the final Panzer Dragoon game until the 2020 announcement... The announcement was in 2018, not 2020. The date of announcement is also not mentioned within prose.
I've got several issues with the Gameplay section. There's a lot of jargon, like the different gauges and Pandora's Box, that either aren't explained or are introduced before they're actually explained, and you've also got unencyclopedic phrases like "with dragon forms capping at Level 5".
You mention that the original Panzer Dragoon is an unlockable bonus in the Development section. Why isn't this anywhere in the Gameplay section?
Orta, implied to be the daughter of Saga protagonists Edge and Azel... You can't state an interpretation like this in the plot section, especially when the developers disagree as to whether it's the case. See WP:VG/PLOT.
Iva is implied to die from his illness in Emid's arms. Again, you can't state an interpretation. Just say what the game itself shows.
Nothing much in the development section, other than the need for copyediting I noted above.
I think the reception section needs to be reworked or rewritten. It follows an "A said B" format and doesn't do a great job of giving an overall impression of the critical consensus. See WP:RECEPTION for advice.
The first paragraph of Legacy is very repetitive and falls into proseline territory, three sentences beginning with "In [year]..." in rapid succession.
You've done an excellent job researching, but I'm afraid there's too much work to be done that remains until the article is ready for GA status. I'm failing the review for now, but I will be more than willing to come back once my points have been addressed to do a re-review. I hope this isn't discouraging—I don't think we're a million miles off, we just need some additional work before it's GA-ready. JOEBRO64 16:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Panzer Dragoon Orta/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Juxlos (talk · contribs) 08:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I will review this. Please provide 2-3 days in order to read through.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The second sentence of the "Plot" section feels too long to read comfortably - splitting would benefit legibility.
The same for the first two sentences in the third paragraph of "Art and graphics"
"Iva is given a necklace of his father's after his death" this reads awkwardly
Good points! I've tried to smooth out these bits. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
"would not be made if he were not involved." was not involved
This seems like a stylistic variant (the irrealis Counterfactual conditional is sometimes written with "were" in this way), but I'll change it if you insist. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: , but see below
C. It contains no original research:
"Orta was the final Panzer Dragoon game until the 2020 remake of the original Panzer Dragoon." - any explicit source for this? The article mentions "revived with the announcement of remakes", but never mentions the remake's date. And also, might as well link the remake there if you mention it.
For that matter, the citations seem to be pre-release interviews not explicitly stating the series being revived. I would argue "revived" is WP:OR here - it implies that the series regained popularity, which while may be the case is not mentioned in the source posted before the release itself.
"For these projects, other companies took on the development and publishing, leaving Sega with minimal financial responsibility" - could you provide a quote from the 4gamer interview that led you to write this? I cannot find anything related to Sega's financial involvement here, at least with machine translation.
To be clear, I didn't write any of this; I'm just trying to shepherd it through GAN. There's no article about the PD remake to link to; there isn't enough to say about it to justify more than a paragraph in Panzer Dragoon, which is where links to the remake currently redirect; I've added a link to that redirect. I don't like the word "revived" there, either; I've tried to de-peacock that language and added a more relevant source. The relevant line about publishing is about half-way through the interview: "僕がパブリッシャになっている理由は，セガさんが損をしないためです" ("The reason I'm becoming the publisher is so that Sega won't make a financial loss."), but I've just removed the sentence, which I'm not at all sure is relevant to this topic anyway. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Due to dependence on developer statements from interviews, could you attribute statements originating from interview statements more?
I've added a few attributions from interview sources, and I cleared up something in the text that seems to have been misunderstood from one of the interviews. If there are specific spots that still bother you, could you point them out? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Looks good now, thanks. Juxlos (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Overall:
@Bryanrutherford0: First pass completed. Biggest concern for me so far is developer statements in interview being treated as direct fact. Juxlos (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the review! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Issues addressed, passing. Juxlos (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)