This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 23 June 2020 by reviewer Rich Smith (talk · contribs). Video games Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Per MOS:VG#Dealing with remakes: If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the distinct reception of a video game remake, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or design, then the remake will qualify for its own article. [...] If there is not enough distinct information on the remake for a complete article, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the original game's article.

Basically - is there any information about the development of Trilogy? I have not yet specifically looked for it, but have not come across any while looking for Ace Attorney information in general. If it can be found, great, otherwise this may have to be redirected to Ace Attorney or List of Ace Attorney media.--Alexandra^IDV 07:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: IanTEB (talk · contribs) 15:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 09:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

1. No PAL release date for the 3DS version mentioned outside of the infobox, and no release date for the iOS and Android versions. These dates are also unsourced as a result.

1. The body mentions an Australia/Europe release, which I believe are usually consider the principle PAL territories in relation to video games. I've changed it to EU/AU for clarity. The mobile release is mentioned in the final paragraph of the release section.

Lead

1. Mention of multiple collections in the lead, but no mention of them in the article aside from mentioning of them possibly being in development

1. Several video game articles have a "Sequel" section, so I did something similar and added a section called "Subsequent collection" which talks about the later compilations.

Images

1. Not failing, but the image in the lead could have an additional rationale of showing the character artwork.

1. Since plot isn't discussed much in the article, I don't know if this works as a rationale but I've added it to the file page.

1. I feel like a comparison shot between GBA/HD would be worth including. As a suggestion, I would recommend using something depicting Maya, since her design was discussed in the dev section in particular.'

1.  Added. I took screenshots from gameplay videos that depict the most important aspects discussed in the article (boat shop sign, Maya Fey, evidence, and UI). The image is currently too large, but the bot should take care of it.

Gameplay and content

1. Should mention and cite that it's a single-player game

1. This doesn't seem to be standard. See the FA Paper Mario: The Origami King for example.

1. It's not a universal rule, but there are other FAs that cite the single-player nature of a game. I believe it's valuable to mention and cite this fact about a game, especially in an industry that is increasingly multiplayer-only.

Development

1. I feel like this cannot be adequate to verify that he has been the producer since AAI

1. I added a GameSpot article that describes him as series producer and changed the wording slightly. I hope this is sufficient

1. Are there better sources for the Digital Works staff? I'm a little more understanding with respect to the Digital Works director not having a secondary source, but for a lower role like lead programmer or lead designer, I'm not sure how I feel about them being mentioned. None seem to be mentioned in Japanese sources either.

1. This is included since these are infobox fields. It seems to be the standard for VG articles; see the Paper Mario example from above. Ideally, I would use secondary sources but I don't think any exist.

1. My chief concern with these kinds of things are that it seems a bit undue if no RS sees it worthy of mention.

Release and promotion

1. The section about the PC release implies that they first released as a trilogy, this should clarify that the trilogy release was created of individually released versions (i.e., "A box set of the PC versions of the three games was released in March 2006 for Windows". I'd also add a mention of it being a Japanese release.

1.  Done

1. The Apollo Justice Trilogy should be mentioned as having eventually materialized; also, mentioning the third game without elaborating on what it's a collection of feels a little anticlimactic. You could mention both of them in the last paragraph, as well as perhaps mentioning the most recent collection of games.

1. The third game was a seventh mainline title, which has not been reported on further on since that Kotaku article. I removed the mention since it is. regardless, probably not particularly relevant to the development of this collection.

Reviews

1. No need to mention the Metascores in the text

1. Really? It generally seems that this is included (see Paper Mario article from above)

1. It's basically the same reasoning as why we tend to avoid stating a review score. As far as precedence, I looked through the Nintendo FAs, and saw that Children of Mana, Golden Sun, Blast Corps, 1080° Snowboarding, New Super Mario Bros., Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, Mario Party DS, Mario Party: The Top 100, Mario Power Tennis, Metroid Prime, Metroid Prime 2: Echoes, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Mischief Makers, Perfect Dark, Pokémon Channel, etc. I think the only others I found were other articles by the Origami King editor (this is not to disparage them, mind), but it's definitely the standard to just cite the "generally well received" assessment. Honestly, I saw Children of Mana cite the highest and lowest scores of RSes featured, which is perhaps an interesting thing to do that I might have to consider, as the Metascore does not illustrate the range of scores.

1. I would recommend paraphrasing text more.

1. Reworked a few sentences. Currently I count four quotations, which should be acceptable for a reception section of this size. I believe that the quotes used are helpful.

1. It might be worth clarifying that the games were originally released in Spanish, such as adding a "despite being available in prior releases of the games."

1.  Done

Sources

1. I noticed that there's a ref idea; is there anything that could be used in that article to improve it? I also noticed that I was the one who added it, haha

1. Unfortunately, the article doesn't mention the remastered trilogy after the foreword. Instead, it is mostly the series creator discussing the games' creation. I think it's best to keep this article focused on the trilogy release and its changes, but it might be useful on the articles for the individual games.

1. Honestly, I just added it because I saw it mentioned and threw it up there because I didn't have time to add or read deeper.

Spotcheck

1. Checked [1]; this may be a little nitpicky, but I believe this does not demonstrate that this is a visual novel, since the source only demonstrates that what it is is close to the genre. Could you possibly find a more explicit ref?

1. Personally, I would consider the GameRevolution review sufficient, but the VG247 article also works to cite this.

1. Checked [2]; the text is accurate to this source.
2. Checked [3]; the text is accurate to this source.
3. Checked [4]; the text is accurate to this source.
4. Checked [5]; the text is accurate to the source.

• @Cukie Gherkin: I believe I have adressed all of your points. This is the fastest it has taken for a reviewer to pick up one of my GA nominations, so thanks very much for the speedy reponse! IanTEB (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't consider anything remaining failing, so I'm going to pass the article. I would strongly recommend not featuring the Metascore outside of the review box, since while it's not a hard policy, it is generally the consensus for FA-class articles. Good job on this article either way. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]