Talk:Faust (Guilty Gear)/GA1

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

Nominator:

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 12:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Will attempt to get this done in the coming days. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@

Sorry for the wait, let's get this rolling.

Six GA Criteria
1. Article is well-written. Very few typos or spelling mistakes, if any at all.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Broad in coverage. Covers multiple aspects of the character in significant depth.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. No major vandalism.

6. The article is illustrated with three fair use images for Faust. All three seem to have valid uses and rationales.

Lead
-I feel the detail about the eyehole is uneeded.

-and drew reactions of being called "creepy" and "macabre" I'd shorten this to just "being called creepy and macabre by..."

Concept and design
-Add "game" after "the final" in the first paragraph.

-" however because at the end of the preceding game, they wanted to redesign his appearance to make it clear he was on the "side of Justice" what happened at the end of the preceding game?

-The bit about the bald head shine confuses me. Does Faust take off the bag for the taunt, or is this related to Baldhead's appearance in the first game?

Appearances
-Looks good. Sources seem cited correctly.

Critical reception
-The GameRevolution, Destructoid, Eurogamer, and CBR sources seem trivial. The CBR one is also credited to Game Rant, for some reason. The TheGamer source on the lucky projectiles also seems rather trivial. Personally, these seem to be rather weak and more trivial mentions of the character than actual serious discussion, amounting to about a sentence or two per article of actual effective commentary. I'd either substitute these sources or just axe them entirely, though feel free to prove me wrong on any of them.

Overall
Article looks pretty solid, but the Reception issues are pretty glaring. Will put this on hold while you work on edits. Ping me when they're done or if you feel a point here should be contested, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
 * Fixed all I could. Removed the Eurogamer ref, but I want to leave the others: they're smaller, but I don't feel they're trivial and do augment the related sources around them:
 * GameRevolution establishes his animations including specific ones as callouts.
 * CBR helps back up the Siliconera ref, and helps establish him as a standout amongst the game's roster.
 * A lot of the reactions to his redesign were sadly in the same vein as the Destructoid article, however I feel this adds enough with the rest to help build the tone of his new appearance for the reader alongside the image.
 * The Gamer ref defines his archetype, making it clear he's the progenitor of the concept that other characters were based off of and works with Sirlin's own discussion, which otherwise may seem like an isolated opinion instead.
 * Let me know if these are satisfactory reasonings.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe your reasonings are enough here. Definitely see your points, given a lot of these are supports for the bigger articles. In any case, with all of the other fixes, I'm happy to pass this article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)