Talk:Breath of Fire IV/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

This article pretty much has the same issues as Breath of Fire III

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Verbose, especially the plot sections. It specifically fails WP:LEAD, WP:WAF (more specifically WP:INUNIVERSE). Prose needs editing for constant use of punctuation (Specifically i saw MOS:FULLSTOP violations) and poorly worded sentience structure.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Numerous references are dead or improperly linked. Several statements in the story section are original research, while others in plot are missing references for likely challengable information.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The gameplay and plot aren't focused going into far more detail than is necessary, especially the battle mechanics and story.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The soundtrack image should be removed per fair use. All of the images need better reasons, specifically citing why that image in particular is nessasary. See School Rumble or Popotan for examples.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The number of references needing to be fixed is quite large and some of them I know will take some time to fix (as they weren't archived on non-html sites) and the amount of prose needing to be redone is quite a lot.陣内_Jinnai 04:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)