Talk:Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 03:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I'll be honest: Part of my motivation for this GAN is not altruistic, but that I'd like to speed along my two GANs being reviewed by sanding away some of the backlog so I can get on Wikibreak before too long. That being said, that's no cause for dishonest reviewing. So here I go. Tezero (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Toriyama and Kitase is not necessary to understand the game, which would be fine, but it's copyrighted and the FUR is severely lacking.
I notice some unpleasant decapitation-related edit wars from a month and a half ago. Were those related to issues you expect to crop back up? (Stability; I have to ask.)
Prose looks pretty good; I've made a few minor corrections so far.

Tezero (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"darker and more vulnerable character" - How does this contradict "stoic"?
Made some more minor corrections to the prose.
There's inconsistent linking in the references, i.e. some sources, like Joystiq, are linked more than once but not every source is linked all the time. Not an issue for GA, but I'd prefer it be fixed.

And... I think that's it. I'll put this on hold. Tezero (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article and the references: as far as I can tell, now the only linking issues are with sites that don't have articles and so can't be linked. I have also removed the image from the development section, and reworded that "darker and more vulnerable" sentence to be less specific while keeping its information valid. As to the edit war, that stemmed from the mixed reception the game received, and seems to have calmed down now. Just for the record, all the XIII game articles have been subjected to this at one time or another. Oh, I also archived a reference from Edge, as I heard the site was to be taken down soon. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Let's do this. Tezero (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]