Talk:Bullet Witch/GA1

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 12:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * I'd wikilink Gatling gun
 * "the scenario had a somber tone to suit its setting despite not being fatalistic" - can you elaborate on this at all; why would it be considered fatalistic in the first place? Maybe I've missed something but I find this confusing.
 * "The in-game cinematics were directed by Yasui. The higher graphical power of the console enabled a greater degree of character expression than Yasui's previous work" - I'd merge these sentences. They follow several very short sentences which begin to read awkwardly.
 * "#21, #7" - see MOS:HASH
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * What makes QJ.net a reliable source? I can't seem to find any information about their editorial staff.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pretty close to passing, Placing on hold until minor issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the grammar issues you pointed out. As to QJ.net (it stands for Quick Jump Gaming Network and it's been around since 2005), I'm using it for two reasons: it's an original source with information not found elsewhere, and it didn't raise comments in the FF Type-0 FA or my GA nominations for FF Agito and Tales of Destiny 2. If you still feel strongly about it, I can remove it, but its associated information will also have to be removed as that's the only real source for it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly about removing it partially because there's no reason to doubt what is attributed to it but also as it's the only source of debatable reliability; I'd be a bit iffy if there were several but since there's only one I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt. I'm passing this now. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)