Talk:Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 20:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

GA Review

This is going to be quick, because the article is amazing and fantastic and I always said it was, but I have found a few nits to pick :)

There is a message on the free use image “ Add a one-line explanation of what this file represents” - please do so
- Done.
I feel there should be just a bit more information on the Chocobo and the Moogle since they have ended up representing the series in a similar way to the Slime represents Dragon Quest. I know there is more Chocobo information on the main chocobo page. Again, not too much, but just a bit.
- I've added some extra on the moogle. I thought more information on them should be sensibly incorporated into the articles themselves. This one's already large enough as it is.
The other “big thing would be reception. Does the reception section cover all the elements from the article? I’m not exactly sure what I would say should be added, I just generally notice it is small relative to a very robust article.
- I realise it looks small, and that's because I was limiting myself to discussion of the series impact as a whole. Most retrospectives focus on single games within the series, and this article covers the series/franchise as a whole. I also wanted to avoid "best of" and "worst of" lists. Plus, there really wasn't much overarching commentary that didn't fall into those categories, which I avoided for the sake of clarity and balance.
Also, I think you might want to consider a three paragraph, somewhat larger introduction. You have so much material here that is fascinating, there should be more glimpses of what’s in store for the reader with a longer introduction.
- I've expanded the lead a little.
Those are my thoughts. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Judgesurreal777: I've done edits, and hopefully addressed concerns. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added just the right amount of Moogle info, I never knew that about them! That info should probably at some point find it’s way into the Mana (series) article, and the creators too! :) The introduction now is delightful, as it gives the reader a hint of the large scope and breadth of the article. Giving an article like this a Green Plus is a mere formality. I don’t know if the reviewers at FAC will appreciate this like I do, but this article is very special: it’s a hundred former articles that were stubs and junk and trivia turned into one beautiful work of art. Here’s a Good Article icon, I hope one day it will have a star and be on the front page! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]