Jump to content

Talk:Yuffie Kisaragi/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 14:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm going to be reviewing. Expect the review in a few days. If it does not meet the criteria I will hold it for one week. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Chronology of her appearances can be confused with her age chronologically in the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII subsection. While this is also a weird way to list different games under the section; each game was separate they can confuse the reader. Its minor, but I really believe that fixing the 'appearances' should be removed from the 'personality' aspect, with the latter being its own subsection. Green tickY
    (b) (MoS) No concerns Green tickY
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Sticks to the material pretty well. Green tickY
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Its appropriate Green tickY
    (c) (original research) One point, "During later development of the game, the Final Fantasy VII team thought about removing both Yuffie and Vincent Valentine due to time limitations, but both were made as hidden characters." Probably covered in the source, but that should be cited. It is a major claim which can be disputed as original research and not intentional. Green tickY
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Covers the official material in detail Green tickY
    (b) (focused) Deals with the role in said material. Green tickY
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    No concerns. Green tickY
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    No edit wars. Green tickY
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here. Green tickY
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has no notes here. Green tickY

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Green tickY The concerns will be fixed, I trust, I cannot hold it against you though either. No reason not to pass.

Discussion

[edit]

Splitting the 'Personality' aspect from the 'Appearance' is my only concern, its not terribly bad, but its not brilliant either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.