Talk:Blue Dragon (video game)/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Blue Dragon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello, I'm your GAN reviewer. My initial comment after a quick scan is the disproportionate amount of information regarding real-world and fiction. I believe that more real-world information, such as reception and development, needs to be added. --haha169 (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the Lead
 * "The game follows the story of five friends, Shu, Jiro, Kluke, Zola, and Marumaro, as they travel across the world to confront the evil King of the Grand Kingdom, Nene. The setting inspired separate anime and manga adaptations, although these follow the story to different degrees and feature a different cast of characters. The game follows a traditional role playing game element based around turns. Each player attacks depending on their agility and speed." - That entire thing needs a few cites.✅
 * "Blue Dragon was apluaded for it's excellent use of the traditional element of role playing games, but was also critisced for the same reason." - How can it be criticized for something it was praised for? It needs a cite, as well as a deeper explanation. Oh, and "critisced" is mis-spelled.✅
 * "Blue Dragon was sold in a game fashion, and in a bundle with the Xbox 360 composed of the game, the Xbox 360 system itself, and a Blue Dragon faceplate." - Needs cite ✅
 * I suggest that the lead be re-organized in the following way: Paragraph 1 deals with names, release dates, who made it (development), etc. Paragraph 2 deals with Gameplay. Paragraph 3 deals with Critical Reception and sales. --haha169 (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)✅

Comments on the "Gameplay" section
 * "...in that the game uses turn-based..." - change "in that" to "because". ✅
 * "with the former having places to rest and purchase items, while the latter contain numerous foes to be defeated." - needs cites. And I'm guessing that the dungeons don't have puzzles? How sad...✅
 * BAD. The entire gameplay section, with the exception of the VERY END, relies COMPLETELY on current ref #2. That needs to be remedied.
 * I suggest a through copy-edit of this section, especially for the removal of VG Jargon - words that non-gamers can't understand.
 * Examples: "charge up" spells or attacks by spending additional time preparing them."
 * "As shadows increase in rank in a given class, they learn new skills, which can then be assigned to a limited number of skills slots." --haha169 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the "Plot" section
 * Seriously, the only major complaint is that the plot needs citations. See Golden Sun's plot for citation templates. --haha169 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)✅
 * I'm not sure if the plot section actually requires cites. If anyone has an idea on how to find these cites, please help. I did check out that of the example's but I'm not sure how to get that since I've sold the game. N . G . G . 23:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the "Development" section Comments on the "Manga and Anime" section Comments on the "Reception" section Comments on the "References" section
 * "original story was created by Sakaguchi" - written by ✅
 * That same sentence needs a cite, (he wrote first 5 Final Fantasy series)
 * The entire first paragraph needs cites for each sentence.✅
 * "confirmed that Blue Dragon 2 was in the planning stages" - Blue Dragon 2 is the sequel, I presume? Change to "...that the sequel, Blue Dragon 2, was in..." ✅
 * Are you certain that there are no more information that could be added into Development? --haha169 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC) ✅
 * The entire paragraph 2 needs cites.✅
 * Why are "sneak preview" and "officially" inside quotation marks?✅
 * The very last sentence needs a cite.--haha169 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)✅
 * "1UP! noted that Blue Dragon was missing "strong characters, gripping storytelling, and excellent pacing."" - The period needs to be outside the quotation mark, per WP:MoS. ✅
 * The last sentence needs a period at the end. ✅
 * I think some reviews should be removed from the box, because it looks odd that the text isn't wrapped around the review box.--haha169 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC) ✅
 * Current refs 6-12 should have a title. Use cite book please.✅
 * Current refs 7 and 8, 9 and 10 are duplicates. Use please. ✅ --haha169 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Response
Thank you. In the temporary absence of those who requested the "Good Article" review, I've gone ahead and made some of the edits suggested here. I did some clean-up on existing references, added additional references, and expanded the "Development" section with further details. I also performed some of the needed miscellaneous copy-editing (e.g., where a period should be placed). I did not address every comment, but I just wanted to let other editors know that at least some of these have been addressed, so please take this into account when comparing the current version of the article against the review comments. --Slordak (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will. I haven't the time to go and check which of my above notes were corrected, but I'm sure they will be crossed out when Gears of War comes back. Thanks for you work. --haha169 (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Result
Due to lack of activity on the article (last edit on the 25th), and only one response on this GAN, I'm failing this article. There are simply way to many issues for me to fix them all by myself, and that shouldn't be requested of a GAN assessor either. If anyone decides to one day give the article a thorough copy-edit one day, please take my suggestions in consideration.

Thanks to all the editors for their hard work, nonetheless. Good luck next time! --haha169 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was on vacation and couldnt do the fixes so I'll fix it up and then send it back to GAN. King Rock (Gears of War) 17:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job. I gave the lead and reception sections a quick scan, and it looks exceptionally better than before. Keep this up, and you can request it at GAN again in no time. --haha169 (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)