# Talk:Vertical Force

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vertical Force/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 05:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lead

The short summary suggests that the Ragnarok has motivations.
Gameplay

I might be mistaken, but "by pushing the A button" and similar game descriptions shouldn't be included.
I've thought about that too, but I guess I sorta just shrugged it off and didn't really think of removing it. I'll cut those out. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Unless I'm misunderstanding, shouldn't the use of "transcend into" just be "switch to"
Development and release

A friend of mine and I are concerned that Nintendo Life uses placeholder release dates in some cases, and I'm curious if this is the case here. Is it possible to try and find an alternative source?
I did find an official Nintendo press release that lists the release dates for all American VB games, but none list the actual day (just the month and year). I'll look again, though. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
"The development team originally planned to make the game a third-person rail shooter in the vein of Space Harrier, however the thought of similar games being released for the console later on instead caused it to become a vertical-scrolling shooter." This concern is for both instances of this fact, but I feel that it would be helpful to state the game or games they're referring to here.
The source doesn't mention any specific games that lead to it being a vertical shump, just says "other similar games". Namcokid47 (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Reception

Despite the lead mentioning polarizing reception, the Reception section has no such mention.
Ack, I forgot to put that in before nominating it. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about what limitations made it difficult to identify bullets?
The bullets sorta blend in with the background, making it difficult to actually see them. I'll make it clearer in the article.
Harsh feels like a strong descriptor and potentially non-neutral, as harsh is defined as "jarring," "unpleasant," "cruel," or "severe." For instance, if Next Generation was the most critical, that might imply that harsh is an overstatement for EP. The EP mention also implies that it having bland gameplay and a lack of originality is a given and not just their opinion.
Consider moving Jeremy Parish's review next to Next Generation's and try to connect the two sentiment. ie, "Parish similarly found the bullets hard to track due to hardware limitations, calling it "sloppy" compared to Hudson's Star Soldier series."
It feels a little awkward to have Parish seemingly say the opposite sentiment he expresses earlier: it's sloppy when compared to Star Soldier, but it also successfully brought over its gameplay concept. That may read as a contradiction to readers, even if the two statements can exist together. I would suggest trying to combine the two sentences re: Parish and try to make a sentence that makes both sentiments make sense.
Same issue with GameFan: the text reads that "addictive" is a given rather than merely just the writer's opinion.
With Game Zero, I'd recommend dropping the quotation, as it's implied by the positive reception they gave it.
Images

The images need more information in their fair use rationale and stronger rationales for both.
The gameplay image needs to be more descriptive, perhaps talk about its red-and-black visuals.
A lot of 'no's presently, but FWIW, most everything is fairly simple to fix, nothing insurmountable. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 06:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
This really isn't one of my best articles, if I'm honest. I rushed through rewriting it out of fear I'd just forget about it and leave it as an unfinished mess, which is likely why there's a lot of contradicting sentences and strange word choices (I'm also not that great at writing reception sections). I'll get to fixing these as soon as possible. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Abryn: Okay, I think I managed to fix everything. Namcokid47 (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)