Talk:Clannad (video game)/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Good blend of video game and anime MoS, and no major issues with main MoS. Would be good if sourced statements were not needed in the lead as it should be a summary of the article, and lead does need at least a brief summary of the reception to meet the guidelines
 * Done.--  十  八  09:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are some unreferenced statements in the Settings and themes, Principal characters, Development, Books and publications, Manga, Internet radio shows, and Music sections (will mark specific statements with fact tags if desired). Some sources being used appear to fail WP:RS.
 * Ref 5 is pointing to a user submitted segment of GameSpot (fed from GameFaqs) Replaced with ref of VN
 * Ref 16, who publishes this? Removed; already had an additional source
 * Ref 31, what makes aniradi.com a reliable source? Removed; already had an additional source
 * Ref 42-45 missing publisher of the original site in the citation Updated
 * Ref 46, Getchu appears to be a store, not a third-party source; why are its sales important/relevant enough to highlight? Removed with claim
 * Ref 47 appears to be pointing to a personal store within Amazon rather than legitimate Amazon content; it is also being misused as a source to support the claim that the game "was the second highest selling bishōjo game of 2004 selling 100,560 units, behind Fate/stay night in first with about 46,000 more units sold" Removed with claim
 * Ref 49, what makes Video Games Blogger a reliable source? Removed with claim
 * Ref 52, also missing its publisher info, appears to be referencing a comment in a blog which isn't a reliable source Removed with claim, but the claim said it was sourced from Media Create, and once I can get an archive of this, I'll be able to add the claim back in.
 * Ref 53-54, what makes Geimin a reliable source? Removed with claims

And now for the unsourced statements. I might as well preach to the choir for the characters section. Tokyo Mew Mew carries not a single cite in anything pertaining to plot info, so why should something like character information (which pertains to the plot) have to be sourced at all? The bare minimum which could be done is to add the visual novel cite to the end of each of the paragraphs as an overview cite, since we're talking about citing a (very lengthy) video game here. I went ahead and tried to source everything I thought needed a cite in the sections you specified. Tag anything else that needs a cite.--  十  八  09:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A plot summary does not require a specific site as it is basically saying "here is what happened" (unless its doing interpretation). However, standalone character sections do need sourcing to source the specific claims being made about the characters, same as a List of characters would require citations to pass FL. If you look at TMM's character list, you will see that every last statement is indeed cited to the material. Citing the game is fine with that, just add it to the first paragraph of the Settings section as well (since its more in game info than interpretation). Also, silly as it may sound, "Welsh is a branch of Celtic, as is Irish" does need a source. :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I took care of those cites. Anything else need a citation?--  十  八  18:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 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):
 * The artbook and manga covers appear to be decorative rather than meeting WP:NONFREE; the artistic style is not significantly different on either to warrant inclusion. I'm not entirely convinced the gameplay image is necessary, but its borderline enough to not be an issue by itself.
 * An image of basic gameplay is a standard feature of any video game article, so there's no reason to remove it. I removed the other two images.--  十  八  09:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On the whole, this article is in great shape. A few hopefully quick referencing issues to correct and the image issue, and it should be good to go. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All issues have been addressed. GAR passed as kept :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On the whole, this article is in great shape. A few hopefully quick referencing issues to correct and the image issue, and it should be good to go. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All issues have been addressed. GAR passed as kept :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)