Talk:Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog)/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Criteria listed below in bold, review in italics.

Well-written

 * the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * ❌ ✅ - While there were no problems with spelling or grammar, the are some organizational issues. The prose is clear in the Design and reception sections, but it's really rough in the appearances section.  Paragraphs are don't seem to have any overall organization and the section is hard to read.  Would reccomend reorganizing it into two or three larger paragraphs, each covering an appearance in a game.  There's a note about the last sentence below.
 * This would result in several small paragraphs. Would organization based on Chaos' appearances as digital pets versus minor characters work? Tezero (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I was just thinking as it is now: Big paragraph, small, one sentence.  It would be better if it were a few evenly sized paragraphs each revolving around a subtopic, just so it reads better.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 06:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Tezero (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Passed, looks better. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 00:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable

 * It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
 * ✅ - Appears to be sufficiently referenced
 * '''It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged
 * ❌ ✅ - The last sentence of the Appearances section references an Amazon.com listing (ref 22). While this is relevant for the keychain mention in the next section, mentioning anime appearances should have a stronger source than a catalog listing.  I recommend either finding a better source or eliminating this sentence entirely.
 * When I put that in, I was looking for a reliable source, but could find nothing stronger than Sonic X fansites and Amazon, and I had heard that Amazon was kosher to show the existence of something. I could remove the sentence, but doing so would render this article ineligible for the Anime and Manga WikiProject (this seems like a big change), and provide no context for the phrase "Chao's likenesses in Sonic X". Tezero (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... would it be possible to cite an episode where Chao appear? -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 06:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I went to List of Sonic X episodes, hit Ctrl-F, and searched for "Chao " to avoid things like "Chaos Emeralds". I found two episodes and added them. Tezero (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This looks alright. I just thought the amazon listing was a little weak to the anime, this is better.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 00:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It contains no original research.
 * ✅ - No OR as far as I can tell

Broad in its coverage

 * It addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * ✅ - Covers main topics required by Video game article guidelines and Wikiproject Anime's Manual of Style


 * It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

Neutral

 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias
 * ✅ - I don't see any POV problems

Stable

 * it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * ✅ - No major drama or edit wars here.

Illustrated - if possible, by images

 * Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

''Would recommend making the title image slightly larger as to be more visible. Would also recommend including one or two more images. However this isn't required.''
 * I don't want to violate WP:NFCC.
 * Well, it would have to be related to relevant commentary. As for the top image, making it a little bigger wouldn't violate WP:NFCC as far I as I can tell.  Again, this is more in the article development so not directly related to GA.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib)
 * I resized it to 200px. It looks a bit fuzzy. Tezero (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
- I'm placing the review on hold. It looks like we have most of what is needed for a Good Article, but there are a couple issues that need to be addressed; this shouldn't take more than a week.. I'll keep this page on my watchlist and when the issues are cleared I'll finish the review. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talkpage. Thanks! -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 11:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I originally posted this GAN as "Everyday life", under which video game-related GANs are listed. I don't know how it got to "Sport and recreation". Tezero (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

✅ Everything looks in order. It's a short article, but it looks to be up to GA quality. Good job! -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 00:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)