Talk:Final Fantasy Awakening/GA1

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

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 16:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Gameplay


 * No need to put rage in quotes.
 * Should state 'player character' instead of 'player'; our anger sadly cannot be used to control games. :(
 * Done, and rephrased instances where it would've appeared too clumsy.
 * I see you say "switched round" instead of "around," is that a typo or a dialect thingy?
 * That was a bit of fast typing on my part. I've changed it to "swapped".

Development


 * It says that it was said to be the first game licensed out by SE to another company, but wouldn't this be verifiable enough to just say that it was as a matter of fact?
 * I've made it less indeterminate. I was afraid of sounding absolute.

Release


 * Link Tokyo Game Show
 * Done.

References


 * Some of the sources are of unclear reliability. Are you able to demonstrate reliability for them? These sources include GeekCulture and GameAxis.
 * Sources were always going to be a problem, as this is an extremely niche title. I used established sites where I could, but the game fell of the radar effectively and I really had to dig to find stuff. MMO.com is the only one I found that cited the engine used, and I hadn't seen any issues raised about it, but that may have to go. GamerBraves (Malasian-origin website founded by journalist Sean Lim) and GameAxis (online successor to defunct print magazine owned by Singapore Press Holdings) are websites specialising in covering tech and/or mobile titles. GamerBraves is the only source I could find for several articles, such as the regional releases, and I'd seen it used in. Now, they're potentially the only source as the regional store pages will have been shut down. GeekCulture I can't verify clearly, so that will likely go. Out of the Chinese sources, Gamer.com is an established general tech site based in Taiwan which I've used for other Chinese language-related game info; Gamersky is again a long-established tech website and seems both popular and reliable for regional news of this kind; IWPlay is one of the game's original licensees according to the blerb; 4Gamers is a comparatively recent website started in 2013, but again seems a legitimate news site covering games and is the only one with this report of the event, which was covered but not as thoroughly in other sources.


 * Typo: "GamerBraces" What a funny typo.
 * Fixed, if the source survives.

Images


 * Not a GA criteria, but consider adding alt text to images.
 * Added.

The review likely isn't finished, but I addressed all the points I could above. Sorry about the long bit on sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's finished. Thanks for the comprehensive response on the matter. I'm good with the sources, though Geek Culture seems the most problematic. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)