Talk:Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem/GA1

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

Reviewer: Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs) 21:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

My first time reviewing a GAN, I shall take a look at this article for any room for improvements, write down my comments here along the way, and then tell you when I have finished reviewing the article. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 21:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts that I have while reviewing the article...
 * The lead section states that the game's development started in 1992, something not said in the body of the article.
 * Could there be a brief mention of what was generally praised and perhaps what was generally criticized in the lead section?
 * (optional) The images should use the  parameter per WP:ALT.
 * Note that while this should be done, it is not part of the GA criteria--IDVtalk 22:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. Tagging it as optional. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 22:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I find the original Japanese titles (such as BS ファイアーエムブレム　アカネイア戦記 and 第1話・パレス陥落) rather distracting. Per WP:JFN, they should all go under the currently nonexistent "Notes" section.
 * I want to believe that RocketBaby is a reliable source, but I have never heard of that website. I suggest that, unless the source really is reliable, a better source be used.
 * Same thing for RacketBoy; I have not heard of that website either.
 * Same thing for Andriasang.com; I have not heard of that website either.
 * The RocketBaby ref is an interview, which is fine as it's considered a self-published source about the subject as long as it's not used to make any extraordinary claims. Here it's just verifying who worked on the game. Andriasang is listed on the WPVG list of reliable sources, and was written by an experienced VG journalist who has previously worked for IGN. I don't know anything about RacketBoy.--IDVtalk 23:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sources 12 and 37 (RocketBaby) are one same source.
 * "" This seems grammatically incorrect. It should be ""
 * "Finding out from Boah that a depressed Hardin was turned evil with the Darksphere by Gharnef in the form of a merchant and only the Lightsphere can save him." This is an incomplete sentence.
 * "...using the Starlight magic, Gharnef is defeated..." It essentially states that Gharnef defeated himself by using the Starlight magic.
 * "...Marth, the main protagonist of Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light, and his army..." This can either be interpreted as either "" or "".
 * " Did you mean to write down ?
 * (optional) "" I think that this article uses American English, so it may need to be changed into "".
 * I am not sure about the reliability of Inside Games. I have a feeling that it is reliable, but I am not sure. Can you confirm the reliability?
 * (optional) "" I think that this article uses American English, so it may need to be changed into "".
 * I am not sure about the reliability of Inside Games. I have a feeling that it is reliable, but I am not sure. Can you confirm the reliability?

Those are all of the issues that I have with the article. As such, I am putting this article for changes to take effect within 7 days. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 01:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How would you rate my performance? (And I prefer honesty over politeness.) Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 03:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've sorted out all the grammatical errors you found (most of them were inherited from the plot synopsis I carried over from the pre-rewrite version). As to RocketBoy, that's the only source I found, and since it wasn't raising any red flags I didn't think it was wrong to use it when sourcing things in this article (especially as it's for a barely-talked about Satellaview title). Inside Games is also a reliable Japanese source; I've used it before for both news and interviews, and since New Mystery is a Japanese exclusive with limited coverage, its use is reasonable (it has been accepted in previous GAs I've nominated).
 * Oh, and as to an honest opinion on your GA review style... You've picked out all those points quite well as any other reviewer would. As to your delivery, it's serviceable but a little haphazard, and those comments would usually go into their own subsection dubbed "review" or something, or into a larger table. It makes reading each of the points easier for nominators. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Very good. I will try to make sorting easier in the future; that is, if I ever will review a GAN again. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 17:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well ddne. I am happy to ✅ this article for the GA-status. Now, I do admit, however, that I could have checked the in-English sources a little more than what I had just to see whether Wikipedia has interpreted the sources correctly, but I held these sources (and their URLs) to be trustworthy, so I do not think that it would be a huge problem. In fact, should I check the in-English sources? Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 17:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You can if you want, but I was careful about citing information that it was as accurate as possible without lifting direct quotes or directly paraphrasing. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All right. I will just go ahead and pass the article. Well done!