Talk:Bullet Witch/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 12:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
I'd wikilink Gatling gun

"the scenario had a somber tone to suit its setting despite not being fatalistic" - can you elaborate on this at all; why would it be considered fatalistic in the first place? Maybe I've missed something but I find this confusing.

"The in-game cinematics were directed by Yasui. The higher graphical power of the console enabled a greater degree of character expression than Yasui's previous work" - I'd merge these sentences. They follow several very short sentences which begin to read awkwardly.

"#21, #7" - see MOS:HASH
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
What makes QJ.net a reliable source? I can't seem to find any information about their editorial staff.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pretty close to passing, Placing on hold until minor issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: I've addressed the grammar issues you pointed out. As to QJ.net (it stands for Quick Jump Gaming Network and it's been around since 2005), I'm using it for two reasons: it's an original source with information not found elsewhere, and it didn't raise comments in the FF Type-0 FA or my GA nominations for FF Agito and Tales of Destiny 2. If you still feel strongly about it, I can remove it, but its associated information will also have to be removed as that's the only real source for it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ProtoDrake: I don't feel strongly about removing it partially because there's no reason to doubt what is attributed to it but also as it's the only source of debatable reliability; I'd be a bit iffy if there were several but since there's only one I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt. I'm passing this now. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]