Talk:Xenogears/GA2
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: PresN 17:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but has a few minor issues before it can become a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- There's a few sections/sentences that do not have cites. These are: the end of the first paragraph of "battle system", the ending of both paragraphs in "gear battle", most of the first paragraph of "setting", and the first half of "characters".
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- GAs do not require everything needs referencing (FAs do). GA require anything likely to be challenged or controversial statements, quotes, etc.陣内Jinnai 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I know; I've written enough of them. Doesn't mean that I'm not going to ask for cites, as in the end none of the information in an article should be coming from the editor, but from the sources. I'm only really concerned with the "Characters" stuff, as the characters uses a lot of subjective terms to describe people. The other ones are much more directly taken from the game, and some of it could easily be cited to a manual or game quote. --PresN 23:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- The nominator seems to be dead on-wiki, so I went through and pulled out the subjective terms describing characters; the remainder of the paragraph is de facto sourced to the game itself. --PresN 16:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I know; I've written enough of them. Doesn't mean that I'm not going to ask for cites, as in the end none of the information in an article should be coming from the editor, but from the sources. I'm only really concerned with the "Characters" stuff, as the characters uses a lot of subjective terms to describe people. The other ones are much more directly taken from the game, and some of it could easily be cited to a manual or game quote. --PresN 23:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- B. 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):
- There's a few sources that I'm concerned about: what makes gamekult.com (cite 36), xgam.org (cite 53), RPG Land (cite 56), and Guardian Angels (cite 59) reliable sources? The FFCompendium interview is also a little weak, but I'm willing to look the other way for an interview- note that FAC won't do this.
- B. 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):
- Did it myself; gamekult seems to be a legit French gaming site, but I removed all of the rest. --PresN 16:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- C. It contains no original research:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- I'm actually not happy with the music section, but as both the OST and Cried articles are GAs, I'm just going to fix that myself with some copy-pasting.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- I don't think that the two images in the story section are needed as they are. One may be used to "illustrate the characters/non-battle screen", but you don't need both for that.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Removed the character image and one of the screenshots. The other I gave a better caption rationale for.陣内Jinnai 20:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Article placed on hold for the immediate moment. If the above issues can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good job on that plot section, by the way, this game would make my head spin just thinking about writing it all down.
- Pass or Fail:
- Alright, Jinnai and I have cleaned up everything I noted in my review, so I'm giving this a pass. Good job to the nominator! --PresN 16:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)