# Talk:Shin-chan: Me and the Professor on Summer Vacation

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shin-chan: Me and the Professor on Summer Vacation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 00:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll call dibs on this one as it looks interesting.  Not a game I'm familiar with personally, but it looks like a neat one.  The article looks really good on a cursory review, but I'll have some specific feedback for you shortly.  Red Phoenix talk 00:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
So, this looks really good.  Nice work.  I don't usually use templates for these, but I want to demonstrate that I've reviewed for all of the criteria:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Comments below.  Really, the only concern I have has to do with sectioning.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
As a subject matter expert when it comes to WP:VG/RS, these are reliable sources, including the Japanese ones. A pass through the copyvio detector showed no real issues; those that did flag are simply because of the game's long title. No signs of OR.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
As per MOS:VG, we have the base sections covered: development, gameplay, and reception. Detail is significant enough to meet the MOS.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Appears to meet WP:NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Edit history is stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Images have appropriate rationales (I even marked them as reviewed for possessing rationales), and even have alt text.  That is fantastic!
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Let's discuss the sectioning, but I think we'll be passing this very shortly.
A couple of points of feedback:

Only sourcing question I had was with the Japanese reviews.  I'm presuming you have already, but did you check to see if the reviewers have names?  I don't read Japanese so I can't determine, but I just wanted to be sure we're covering all the bases.
I've double checked and the 4Gamer and Famitsu writers are respectively credited mononymously as "Tamako" and "Nishikawa", which is not an uncommon practice in the Japanese enthusiast press, but I think it would just create confusion in the article if it stated "Tamako of 4Gamer..." or what have you. Morgan695 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, I can let that go. Red Phoenix talk 01:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so let's talk sectioning. The one issue I have is with how much things are broken up into sections and paragraphs.  While I understand the principles of doing small sections in order to divide up every concept, articles read with better fluency if we consolidate smartly.  Namely, here are the changes I would suggest:
Remove the subsections from Reception, and take the sales statement and make it the first sentence of the first paragraph.  It still fits the reception mold: how a product sold is the ultimate measure of how it was received by the public, and it can still be followed by the Metacritic sentence as that is a measure of how it was received by the press.  The opening paragraph then fits as an introduction to the section.
Done. Morgan695 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Condense the last paragraph of Release into the paragraph above.  We talk about all the languages the worldwide release was in in that paragraph, then do a separate paragraph for its release date. That just seems excessive and segmented.
Done. Morgan695 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Consider combining the Planning and Production subheaders of development, and combining the two Production paragraphs together. They would possess better flow and still read sensibly in such a manner.
Done. Morgan695 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Overall looks really good.  Let me know when you have looked into my feedback points, and I'm fully anticipating I'll be passing this article in a very short amount of time.  Nicely done. Red Phoenix talk 01:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix: Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Quick on the draw.  Passing now.  Well done.  Red Phoenix talk 01:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)