Talk:Machines (Nier: Automata)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. 123Writer ^talk 11:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 06:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the August 2023 backlog.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No style issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead contains only info in article. No issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Reference style is consistent.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is either cited
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See below.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Adequate amount of detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues of neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Last edit not by me is from over a month ago.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One image with fair use rationale.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relevant as the image is the subject.
	7. Overall assessment.

Related discussion

There is a conversation happening here about the article.

Main issue

My main issue with this article is, as discussed in the above link, the low quantity of sources. While there is no GACR stating an article must have x amount of sources, a low amount of sources may indicate a lack of coverage. Because the game in-question is Japanese, is there perhaps any additional sources that, if added, will make the article less likely down the line get reassessed? I believe the term for the machines is 機械生命体, which turns up a variety of sources when Googled. If you don't know Japanese, that's fine, you can use Google translate and double-check with me. There is also the NieR:Automata World Guide and novels you can consult, both available in English.

Also, I think the article could do with a section on mechanics: how do the Machines fight in-game? You could mention the bullet hell mechanics some machines display while fighting. 123Writer ^talk 08:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just added one source specifically about one of the machine bosses and I'll try to see if there are any others around. I still think this is a pretty adequate amount of sources myself but I don't doubt more exist as I mostly pulled the most substantive. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I'll add a section on the gameplay mechanics of how they fight. (Which, generally, is pretty diverse - melee attacks with weapons, melee attacks without weapons, slow projectiles, fast projectiles, etc.) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, just an overview will do, including anything about their AI/other in-game attributes that is noteworthy. Take your time and ping me when you're done. 123Writer ^talk 09:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@1TWO3Writer: Is the added section sufficient? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to be. Good job! I've also spot-checked some sources and everything seems to be in order. As there isn't an arbitrary source number requirement in GACR, I'll pass this article, however definitely feel free to expand and add more sources as at least that'll keep people addicted to see the little blue numbers happy. 123Writer ^talk 10:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.