Talk:Alisia Dragoon/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It is very clearly written and organized and well referenced. My concern is the following, listen under comments.

I am concerned about the use of three copyrighted images under fair use. The dark one I don't think you can justify as it is too dark to reveal much. I am doubtful you can justify the one that shows the Japanese version, the dainty-version, as the article does not go extensively enough into the differences.

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this article. I am unsure about your image comments though.
- I presume by the "dark one", you mean File:Alisia Dragoon action.jpg? I could try changing the brightness of the image, although that may be a concern for authenticity. In the meantime (I am not on a PC with the appropriate image editing capability), would alisia-3.png, alisia-4.png, or alisia-9.png help to serve the same content but is bright enough for the purpose?
  - I have brightened up the image, is it okay now? Jappalang (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Alisia Dragoon JPN.jpg is to illustrate the Japanese version; I think this is where words could not accurately describe the character in the Japanese original design, compared to the use of an image per WP:NFCC#8. Anime character designs change with time (the constant would generally be the overly-large eyes), and I hope to greatly enhance the readers' understanding of the differences by letting them compare the two cover images visually.

Awaiting further opinions. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is always difficult. Three fair use images, especially versions of the same figure, is definitely too many. You might be able to make a case for two if you go into enough depth in the article on the difference between the two figures and the meaningfulness of the difference. This is my opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a question of having three Fair use images of the same thing. I could stretch it for two, if you can justifify the second image via text (a comparison of the Japanese vs. the US verson) but what is the justification for three? Your article is good with out it, I think. A well written article, well illustrated. What does the third image add? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot expand the differences between the JPN and the US/EUR box covers further. Reliable sources that cover the game are scarce due to the subject's age, and the journalistic standards then are relatively light for the industry; hence, there is little reliable material (commentary or criticism) for me to further expand the differences. While I think that my rationale for the JPN box cover was fairly strong (for illustrating the differences that words cannot accurately convey), I understand your viewpoint: why put in a fair-use image for something that has relatively light coverage, mentioned in one sentence (do correct me if I have misinterpreted you). Although I have my doubts, I have removed the image. Jappalang (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A nicely written and organized article. Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 18:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]