Talk:Bridget (Guilty Gear)/GA1

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

Reviewer: DarthBotto (talk · contribs) 01:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Intro
 * Both paragraphs are well-written, provides an adequate degree of synopsis and essentially covers enough bases. I would say this portion is overall secure.

Concept and design
 * At first glance, the details of this portion are scarce. Further information on concept and design should be provided to the extent that at least one more paragraph of equal length is provided.
 * "The series' creator also said that Bridget was a difficult character to animate..." Beginning with this sentence, the other paragraph should open up, or at least this portion should be a feature of the new paragraph about the intricacies of the character.
 * There are two references touching each other, one from Neoseeker, the other from the University of California. Considering it's an individual quote, but there are more details preceding this, it would be advisable to spread the references out.

Appearances
 * Remember to use the present tense while discussing the actions of a character.
 * There are three references slicing into one sentence about Bridget's backstory. I would remove most of them, as they are not substantive in this particular context.
 * The Destructoid reference is operating as a hindrance, as it's being /ref'd like hell, but it doesn't have any other references in between, so this is unnecessary. This should be cleaned up.
 * The synopsis for the second game is rather scant. I'm not an expert on the series, (which is probably why this review is all the more valuable), but perhaps a slight expansion would be prudent?
 * The final paragraph is rather sound. Mind you, I don't speak Japanese, but so far as the English content is concerned, I am rather satisfied.

Reception
 * This section jumps right into it, which I wouldn't recommend. I would open with a broad statement about Bridget's overall impact and go from there.
 * This section seems rather disproportionately massive. I would remove the more vapid or less poignant details, in order to leave the overarching theme more pronounced and intact.
 * While mentioning the LGBT articles, I would dissuade editors from having four references in a row.
 * Ensure that the organization of this section is pronounced. Look to have the input of the critics organized via positives, negatives and thematic commentary, such as the question of his sexuality.

Closing thoughts
 * Considering that this page has never been rated before, I am pleased with the quality of the article. Before I may grant GA status, please attend to the notes above, as well as my closing thoughts.
 * I would recommend writing a new section for "Attributes", which would describe the personality, life style and essence of the character. Yes, they appear to be androgynous and metro-sexual, but I am sure there is more to the character. This proposed section would be placed beneath Design and above Appearances.

Verdict - Due to a complete lack of inactivity after a week's notice, I am failing this review. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 01:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)