Talk:Voldo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 00:48, 23 May 2023 (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 non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Lead should have a little bit of discussion about his creation. Ie, who created him and the process of his creation.
1. Should be fixed
Aya Takemura is not mentioned outside of the infobox
1. Fixed
"his character was rendered as a 3D model by a design team that worked solely on him." This line might imply to the reader that Voldo was unique in this respect
1. Added a bit to the beginning of the sentence to fix this.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found a dead link: [1]
1. Fixed.
I feel like the Promotion aspect of Promotion and reception should stand on its own.
1. I'm wary about a single paragraph promotion section, and there's nothing more to flesh that paragraph out further.
In the Reception section, it feels like a lot of the examples are [Source] described Voldo as "quote". I think that the section could be tightened up and improved. Ie, the Game Chronicle source, in context, calls him one of his favorites, citing his creepiness. So you could rewrite it as "Game Chronicles writer Mark Smith regards Voldo as his favorite in Soulcalibur IV due to how creepy he is." This would feel more natural, I think. Consider maybe combining some commentary if it's very similar, or using different words (ie how one example uses 'described' while another one says 'noted')
1. Should be fixed
An additional note is that, when quoting someone directly, you should either paraphrase the quote or ascribe the quote to the author rather than just the website (if possible, I know some sources just say "staff").
1. Should be fixed now
I noticed some sources have formatting issues, such as ones without the cite web tag. Additionally, it'd be useful to make sure that the sources are formatted similarly, and IMO, you shouldn't need to list staff as the author, as that's implied.
1. Fixed

Sources:

https://8wayrun.com/threads/the-complete-outcast-odyssey-gallery-now-in-our-wiki.19336/ - this seems unreliable
1. Replaced with game website link.
http://everydayliteracies.blogspot.com/2006/11/machinima-ever-had-one-of-those_28.html - Are the people in this source reliable?
1. Yes, both are university professors and both were considered reliable in Dance, Voldo, Dance

Ya, looks good. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]