# Talk:Victorious Boxers: Ippo's Road to Glory

Merge criticism and reception.
Reference the lead section.
Contains some unreferenced POV-ish sentences:
"In spite of this, Victorious Boxers is still regarded as an excellent boxing game by those that did actually play it."
"One of the main hurdles Victorious Boxers had to overcome was the fact that the game was based off of a manga series that was virtually unheard of in the US at the time."
Too much game guide information - WP:NOT#IINFO number 4.
Also, note that lists and tables are generally not seen as 'content', and that without those the article would be quite short.
Start class. Low importance.
--User:Krator (t c) 17:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


### Second
On request:

{{cite web}}
Get rid of the boxers table. As I said above: "lists and tables are generally not seen as 'content'" - just delete it and provide a link to your source of that information. This is just too much of a game guide.
Story modes seems too game guide-like too.
Make a section on storyline, and include (cited!) comparison between game and manga. Might need to find someone who can read Japanese for additional sources.
Include a development section - think about the following for that:
What are the main features of the game?
When was the game announced?
Was one of these features revolutionary in the genre?
Technical details, like the engine of the game.
--User:Krator (t c) 23:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I didnt find it under VB2. Is it under the japanese name? Also need a box for the series - 1, 2, and the fighting revolution for Wii.Tehw1k1 22:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the user that created this Victorious Boxers article and I did have plans to create one for the sequel but am currently wrapped up in other articles. Another reason why I haven't created the article yet is because I have yet to finish playing it, but who knows when that will happen. If you would like to create a "Victorious Boxers 2" article, then by all means go for it, "be bold" remember, I'd be happy to assist with adding in information. As far as a navigation box for the VB series, since there is only one game article it wouldn't make much sense right now. Plus it might make more sense to create a "Fighting Spirit" box for the series, characters, and game (something else on my list to do). (Guyinblack25 23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
Just found an article about the Wii game coming out if you're interested. Hajime no Ippo: The Fighting Revolution (Guyinblack25 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC))
Thanks. I might start that article eventually. At the very least its an excuse to pull that game from my backlog.Tehw1k1 07:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are some things you can do in order to improve this article. I think the introduction is a bit long and talks about things that should be discussed in the article itself (Example: Japanese translation of game.) Also, you should probably expand on the plot and setting section and the reception to give a better image of the game. There are some suggestions. Sorry if they are bad. I don't really know a lot about improving articles. :( Captain panda 21:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, thank you for the suggestions I'll see what I can do to improve the article further. Thanks again. (Guyinblack25 16:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC))
Development needs expansion, 3 paragraph lead (beginning, story, reception), trim story, add a reference for the setting section, copyedit thoroughly. That would get GA for me. :) Then just more development/copyediting for FA. Judgesurreal777 03:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Victorious Boxers's design gave it a feel of realism and versatility that had not been implemented in a boxing game before. While other games before it had used such ideas as bobbing, ducking, and utilizing an analog control to add degrees of movement, Victorious Boxers did it all on a level of precision not yet seen."
As far as I'm concerned this is POV. I've played one of the Victorious boxers games, and I personally think Foes of Ali, Holyfield boxing, and Muhammad Ali boxing on the Megadrive were much better games in terms of the control method. But that's just my opinion. Just like that stuff above is the opinion of a gamespot guy- not fact. That said though, it's a bloody good article generally. Whoever did it, well done. I've been trying to do a few boxing game articles myself- Foes of Ali, Greatest Heavyweights, Holyfield boxing, Muhammad ali Boxing.. Doom jester 07:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
Overall, very well written article with appropriate references and adequate citations. There were only a few problems that prevented me from passing the nomination:

Some awkward prose was present, although it was mostly great. Look at the usage of commas and terminology. Repetitive sentences and wordy diction was most prevalent (but not incredibly common). One of the biggest problems was with the style of the article; There needs to be a large increase in wikilinks. The Gameplay section has only a few and it is quite long. This is apparent throughout the article. I added a few in the lead, but other sections need to be wikified. Read the article and pretend you know nothing about the topic or want to find more. Which words would be targeted? "Boxing" wasn't linked before I added it, which was clearly an issue. The lead section should also be a summary of the article and not an introduction (it may have introductory qualities, but should be a stand-alone summary).
Major aspects of the game are not covered. There are great sections on gameplay, story, and reception, but the Development section is simply a potentially point-of-view restatement of the Reception section. Development should give details about the creation of the game, including beta testing, pre-release information, and any other technical aspects of the actual video game process. Money spent, fundraising, marketing, and other related information could be included in this section - if that is done the title of the section should be renamed to be more inclusive. In addition, the Modes subsection repeats what was already said in the previous section. Consider removing anything related to modes in the previous section, as it is explained well in the specific modes subsection.
Other than that I liked the images with fair use rationale :) and the quotations. Very well done. If any more images can be added to sections at the bottom that would make it an even better article. The article is stable, doesn't seem to advocate a particular point of view (except perhaps the Development section, which I mentioned already), and is not overly descriptive. I put the article on hold because these improvements can easily be made in the next 7 days. Once done, I suspect it will pass the good article criteria :) -- Noetic Sage 04:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The wikilinks have been addressed and the lead paragraphs have been tweaked as well. Save for the "Development" section, the article has been copy edited and further condensed to deal more with redundant content.To be honest, I'm not sure what to do with the "Development" section. I tried to include information that focused on the main features of the game, and features that were considered revolutionary at the time, but after several months of searching the internet, even Japanese sites, I couldn't find much else than what is currently there now. If you don't think it's up to snuff, then I'll integrate it into the reception section and leave a sect-stub tag in the "Development" section. Thanks for the comments to improve the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Although you have made some great improvements to this article and the fact that it is still better than some other Video Game Good articles, it's not as good as others and still fails to satisfy a few small parts of the Good article criteria. I think you should definitely renominate this article in a week or two when you can adequately address the following concerns:

Prose was improved since I first put the article on hold, but there are still issues with repetitiveness. As mentioned before, the Gameplay section includes information about modes before the Modes section even starts. In fact, it almost uses the exact same sentence in both sections. This is unnecessary. Some of this is also present between the Development and Reception sections, as well as the Characters section. Also, there could still be more Wikilinks throughout the article. All sections pretty much need it, but especially Development (which should change anyway).
Speaking of the Development section, it is still not what it should be. Take a look at the All Star Pro-Wrestling article, for example. Included is information that led to the release of the game, such as design, beta testing, etc. If you can't find much on this then the article may not (unfortunately) ever be GA worthy. I'm sure there's some info out there somewhere. The Development section should really be information about the game before it was released. Any references from reviews or post-release reception should not be in this section.
That's really all that needs to be improved. Check out some of the other Video Game Good articles for ideas of what to include. I know some are worse than this article, but that alone doesn't mean that this article should be approved. I was impressed with your improvement of the lead and the addition of relevant wikilinks. Keep up the good work and the article will be ready to be nominated again! Let me know if you have any questions. -- Noetic Sage 23:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't actually read the articles but perhaps Victorious Boxers 2: Fighting Spirit and Victorious Boxers: Revolution could be merged in this article if the three games have enough similarities. This would result in one article with one average Development section instead of three articles with three permanent stubby sections. Of course if the games are too much different from one another (in terms of gameplay, etc.) a merge would be totally impratical. But it's just a suggestion. Kariteh (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. VB2 and Revolution are in a stubby state because I never got around to playing either of them enough to finish writing the sections. Also, like this one, development info has been very sparse. But they could be fleshed out as well as this one, it just hasn't been done yet.
Regarding your suggestion, the only two I know are similar enough are this one and VB2. Revolution was developed by another company and changed many aspects of the gameplay. There are also two other Hajime no Ippo video games, one of the PS1 and GBA, though I know very little about them. I've contemplated make a series article, but Victorious Boxers is somewhat an unofficial title via localization and there is very little as far as series content goes. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
I've expanded the Development section; it's still short, but I believe it covers the main point of the development process. Do you think the section is good enough for a GA? Kariteh (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Holy cow, you rock. It's slim, but I think it might just be enough. Let's go for it. I'll do some copy editing for it again since it's been a while from its last one. After that, let's nominate it and hope for the best. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

This review is transcluded from Talk:Victorious Boxers: Ippo's Road to Glory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Eek. Ref 1. GameFAQs. Is it a reliable source for release dates? Maybe, maybe not, but surely someone else has reported them?
"Though the series is very popular in Japan, it is not as widely known in the United States." - perhaps this would work better in the reception paragraph of the lead?
"Victorious Boxers received positive review scores, though aspects of the game were both criticized and praised." - the second part is so ambiguous it hurts (a little :-)... surely you can say a bit more than that.
Check all the fair use rationales... some image bots really hate redirects, so it's best to make the links point to this article.
That's all there is on development?
Is there any legacy of the game or anything like that? The reception section, and the article, sort of... end. If you get my drift.
Gimme a yell when you're done with this! Cheers, giggy (:O) 15:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this covers most everything.
The GameFAQs ref has been switched out for a GameSpot source.
I tweaked the "...popular in Japan, it..." statement. It referred to the manga series, so that's why it was in the lead. I've tried to better clarify this.
Expanded on it's reception a bit in the lead.
Updated links on the image pages.
Sadly, I don't think much else can be found regarding development. Numerous game sites, English and Japanese have been searched looking for content and this is most that could be found.
A "Sequels" section has been added after the "Reception" section.
Let us know if there's anything else that needs to be addressed. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC))
All looks good, so passed. giggy (:O) 02:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.
Cheers, giggy (:O) 02:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)