Talk:Dragon Quest VII/GA1
Appearance
(Redirected from Talk:Dragon Warrior VII/GA1)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 01:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
This article came up for review at WP:GAN. It looks like it's been waiting a while... well, let's see if we can rectify that. I'll go through this a criterion at a time and evaluate how well the article meets the standards.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- I caught an issue with spacing in one word, so I went ahead and just touched that up really quick. Having read the article over thoroughly, I believe the article does meet the manual of style in the five areas necessary to meet 1b. As I read the article, I only found one real issue I have with the prose, and that's that the manga subsection doesn't need to be two paragraphs. I will consider it as having passed 1a, but I recommend that these two paragraphs be merged. Everything else read very well, and meets the "reasonably well written" condition.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- I checked the references, and I have no reason to believe any of them are unreliable. Use of IGN is excellent since it's a WP:VG/S acknowledged reliable source, and everything else appears to be suitable and reliable for what they source.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- It's very nice to read an RPG article where the plot is kept somewhat thin. Usually when I review RPG articles, I consider plot and characters as one block, gameplay as another, development as a third, and reception as a fourth. As I read it, all four of these are very nicely kept in balance, and each is covered in depth. Development and reception are deep enough; plot and gameplay are shallow enough, and nothing appears to leave any important details out. Very well balanced and meets 3 perfectly.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Good balance in the reception section. Point of view doesn't seem to be an issue.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edits since May 27th; should definitely be 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):
- Only two images, both fair use because this is an article about a copyrighted work. That meets criteria 6 to me.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Wow, well done! I think we can directly pass this to GA status. Keep up the good work!
- Pass/Fail:
Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)