Talk:Dragon Quest VII/GA1

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

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 01:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article came up for review at WP:GAN. It looks like it's been waiting a while... well, let's see if we can rectify that. I'll go through this a criterion at a time and evaluate how well the article meets the standards. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I caught an issue with spacing in one word, so I went ahead and just touched that up really quick. Having read the article over thoroughly, I believe the article does meet the manual of style in the five areas necessary to meet 1b.  As I read the article, I only found one real issue I have with the prose, and that's that the manga subsection doesn't need to be two paragraphs.  I will consider it as having passed 1a, but I recommend that these two paragraphs be merged.  Everything else read very well, and meets the "reasonably well written" condition.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I checked the references, and I have no reason to believe any of them are unreliable. Use of IGN is excellent since it's a WP:VG/S acknowledged reliable source, and everything else appears to be suitable and reliable for what they source.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It's very nice to read an RPG article where the plot is kept somewhat thin. Usually when I review RPG articles, I consider plot and characters as one block, gameplay as another, development as a third, and reception as a fourth.  As I read it, all four of these are very nicely kept in balance, and each is covered in depth.  Development and reception are deep enough; plot and gameplay are shallow enough, and nothing appears to leave any important details out.  Very well balanced and meets 3 perfectly.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Good balance in the reception section. Point of view doesn't seem to be an issue.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edits since May 27th; should definitely be stable.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Only two images, both fair use because this is an article about a copyrighted work. That meets criteria 6 to me.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Wow, well done! I think we can directly pass this to GA status.  Keep up the good work!