Talk:Fire Emblem Gaiden

Fire Emblem Gaiden has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Fire Emblem Gaiden is part of the Main Fire Emblem series series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 30, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed
June 5, 2017	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Video games: Nintendo Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Bejeweled Stars (1 participant)
Melee (game terminology) (2 participants)
Solo leveling: Unlimited (2 participants)
Game Sack (4 participants)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Araya (video game) (3 participants; relisted)
Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) (8 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (11 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fire Emblem Gaiden/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 20:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judgesurreal777's Review

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.	In the intro, it shouldn't said "Gaidan began development" since the game isn't a person, it should be something like "development began" etc. Otherwise, very well written! Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Formatted exactly as should be done for an article of this subject.
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.	Layed out correctly.
	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).	What is Translan, are they a reliable source? Translan is a Japanese law firm who worked on a case involving Tear Ring Saga's alleged plagiarism of the Fire Emblem series. This is information from that case from their site.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Well cited throughout, lots of in-line references attributable to reliable sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Ran copyright checker, no detectable levels of violation.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All relevant aspects are covered, good amount too for a Japan only title.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Very focused, no fluff.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Very neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Evidence of finessing by the nominator and other quality Wikipedians along with a few IPs, and no sign of any edit warring.
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.	Both complaint, both in good shape.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Probably want to change the phrase "tackling" in the second image description, not very encyclopedic sounding. Otherwise very good. Done
	7. Overall assessment.

@Judgesurreal777: Are you still doing this? If you need more time, that's cool, just wanted to check if you forgot about it or if something else came up or whatever.--IDV^talk 01:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit more time, shouldn't be a long or hard review. I will try again to wrap it up tonight. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your patience @IDV:! The article is excellently done, I'll put it on hold for seven days, let me know if you need any more time than that for the few fixes I suggested, I'll gladly give that to you since you waited so long. Great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Judgesurreal777: No problem! I think I have addressed everything.--IDV^talk 12:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IDV: Great work! Good luck with topic building for this famous series. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Judgesurreal777: Thank you! Although I think I should say that it was ProtoDrake who actually wrote the article - I only did some minor fixes and handled issues coming up in the GAN review.--IDV^talk 21:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sales figures

Out of curiosity, where have those sales figures mentioned in the opening paragraphs been lifted from? Broadbandmink (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]