Talk:Blue Dragon (video game)/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Article is very well-written. However, there are a couple of issues that need to be addressed below before I pass for GA.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):  b (MoS):
 * The paragraph structure in the Story section needs improvement. There are a couple of one-sentence paragraphs in that section, which especially needs to be addressed. Make the paragraph structure more consistent size-wise.
 * ✅--( NGG ) 21:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. MuZemike 22:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The last sentence in the Characters subsection (describing General Szabo) and the last section in the Development section (before the subsections, the reference to Blue Dragon Plus) are unreferenced. The last paragraph in the Manga and anime section are not only unreferenced, with the exception of the first sentence, but also has a pair of fact tags in there. Either reference them or remove them; I'm sure the Characters one is fairly easy to reference.
 * ✅--( NGG ) 22:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. MuZemike 22:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Excellent coverage of the entire topic, which includes both the game and the anime and manga.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No instability or edit warring since the push to GA. As a side note, it's interesting how some articles all of a sudden become amazingly stable after some good work being done on it.
 * 1) 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):
 * I went through and improved the images for you. Remember that they need to be of small size and low-resolution in order to comply with WP:NFCC. I have also strengthened the fair-use rationales, which is also a must to comply with WP:NFCC. I tend to demand this for Good Articles as opposed to other reviewers. However, this is an absolute must in order to stand a chance for FA status, as FAC reviewers will oppose on the basis of shobby non-free images/FURs alone.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Placed on hold until the necessary improvements can be made. MuZemike 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice job! It passes GA! MuZemike 22:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice job! It passes GA! MuZemike 22:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I combed through the article for other syntax issues which may provide problems especially should this article approaches FA. Here are some of the things I have corrected (use this for future reference):
 * Consistency in comma usage → I am assuming the article is written in the North American style as opposed to Oxford style, so you need to place a comma before the conjunction. For example: "foo1, foo2, and foo3" instead of the Oxford style "foo1, foo2 and foo3". Stay consistent, and don't switch between styles.
 * Citation templates:
 * WP:CITE discourages the mixing of different citation templates. If you're going to use citations for references other than websites along with references from websites, stick with the citation template.
 * The  parameter in the citation template refers to the specific page numbers in the reference, not the total number of pages (these were removed).
 * It is unnecessary to include the  in each template as, being en.wiki, the template defaults to English.
 * The publisher does not need to be wikilinked in every instance of the citation—just the first instance and that's it. This prevents excessive overlinking in the References section.
 * Stay consistent throughout all citations with the date formatting. I have changed everything to the MMMM-YY-DD.
 * For proper XHTML parsing, ref tags should follow or, with quotations around the tag, and in the latter a space followed by a slash after the right quotation.
 * I placed spaces after the end of each parameter in each citation. This helps the formatting in the text box and makes editing easier.
 * WP:MOS discourages the forced resizing of images in the article, i.e. adding a size parameter in the File or Image templates. This hampers usability and borks up the XHTML code (that is, different screens, browsers, and OSes treat these iamges differently and may lead to issues if forced resizing is used). I have removed them.
 * Please consider moving the citations out of the lead, as they tend to clutter up the lead. (Even though WP:LEADCITE ultimately leaves this to the discretion of the editor, this is normally frowned upon by many reviewers at WP:FAC.) If the facts in the lead are not already mentioned in the main body of the article, then copy them into the main body and then remove the citation in the lead. If it already is in the main body, then simply remove the corresponding citation.

Hopefully, this helps out and gives this article a leg-up as far as consideration for A-Class or even FA is concerned. Otherwise, good job, so far! MuZemike 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)