Talk:Dragon Quest VII/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 01:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edits since May 27th; should definitely be stable.

6. 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.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Wow, well done! I think we can directly pass this to GA status. Keep up the good work!

Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)