Talk:Klonoa: Door to Phantomile/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rapunzel-bellflower (talk · contribs) 22:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Very minor points to correct: "Yoshizawa established the dream concept because he was interested in exploring the quickly the idea of where dreams go when they are forgotten." in development. For "The game was revealed at the 1997 E3 trade fair with a trailer video," I'm not sure if it's just a trailer or something more unique. Probably because I'm not familiar with the game, I'm having a little bit of difficulty figuring out what a "young boy creature" is. "One of Ghadius' henchmen eavesdrops into the conversation" should be "onto the conversation," I believe.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes, it follows the manual of style's guidelines quite nicely.
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.	I'd like to see ref 42 fully formatted.
	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).	Yes, the citations are from video game magazines, notable and reliable sites, and video game criticism.
	2c. it contains no original research.	as far as I can tell, it does not have original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There is some minor wording that I'd like either changed or clearly marked as quotes. The copyvio tools found some similarities with the Game Revolution review.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, it addresses the main points well and concisely.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes, it is focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Seems very stable from the edit history.
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.	The rationale for the screenshot is a bit bare bones, and I'd definitely like to see it expanded a bit more.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and used appropriately.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a very strong, nicely done article, and I feel that there are only very minor changes to be made before it fully meets all the criteria. Please let me know when you have made those changes! Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rapunzel-bellflower: OK I think I addressed all points. Regarding "young boy creature", I changed it to just "boy", but am open to suggestions. It's never stated in the game (or any related media) what type of creature or animal he is. All we can say is he's a furry anthropomorphic mammal. TarkusAB^talk 00:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a lot of progress. I have unintentionally led you astray in my suggested correction for the eavesdrop problem: it seems that the correct preposition that goes with it is actually "on", not "onto". Sorry about that! Furry anthropomorphic animal works quite nicely if you still would like to change it; boy works as well. Reading through a second time, I caught the very minor "IGN wrote agreed that[...]" and "It was postponed so it could be upgraded it to". I would also like an accessdate for ref 42. As for the too-similar wording, I was concerned about the phrase "inflated like a balloon" that appears in the Game Revolution review and the gameplay section. Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rapunzel-bellflower: Fixed, although I don't think "inflated like a balloon" constituted plagiarism. All other ways to say this are needlessly wordy. It is the simplest phrase to express this idea so not plagiarism. TarkusAB^talk 15:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! That's definitely possible that "inflated like a balloon" may meet common use. I'm very happy with all the changes made, and I believe that it now meets all the GA criteria. Keep up the great work! Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]