Talk:Fire Emblem Gaiden/GA1

GA Review

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

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]