Talk:Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia/GA1

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 13:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * "new elements including dungeons" - can you clarify this or is there an appropriate wikilink for 'dungeons'? I know what you mean but non-gamers probably won't have any idea what you're talking about.
 * Sorted.
 * Video game localization is linked into the body, link it into the lead as well.
 * Sorted.
 * "in Support conversations" - should support have a capital?
 * It's been capitalised in other GA Fire Emblem articles without fuss, so I was just following the trend so the articles are as uniform as possible.
 * "but it was too early to be developing for that system" - why was it too early?
 * I've elucidated.
 * link 'foil' to Foil (literature)
 * Sorted.
 * "While the team contemplated adding elements from earlier 3DS titles such as a player-created avatar, but the team wanted to focus on original protagonists Alm and Celica." - You're going to have to rewrite this sentence. I can't figure out what you mean.
 * Sorted.
 * "As Gaiden had this featured originally, it was considered a "perfect" match" - considered "perfect" by whom?
 * Sorted.
 * "The character growth rates were increased by two or three times" - what's a character growth rate?
 * Deleted.
 * "An element that was not carried over from Awakening and Fates was the Marriage system" - if you want to keep this you're going to have to explain more about what this system did exactly
 * Sorted.
 * "despite the requirement for grinding" - what does this mean?
 * Sorted, I think.
 * There's too many uses of "noted" in the reception section; this term should be avoided in general as per WP:WORDS
 * Done my best.
 * "the game was #5 in the" - see MOS:HASH. There are four hashtags in the Sales section which need to be replaced
 * Sorted.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * There's one case of four inline citations at the end of a single sentence, one case of six and one case of seven. I'd say these all violate WP:OVERCITE. I don't see why you'd need more than three sources for anything non-controversial.
 * Sorted.
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * There's a disturbing amount of recent vandalism from an IP but the page is currently protected and I hardly think the nomination should be penalised because of an IP attack, regardless of how prolonged it was
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: I made some copyedits. Personally I'd nominate this article for an overhaul at the Guild of Copy Editors, but I'm happy to pass the prose as is and just let you nominate it there later. Placing this on hold until issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done my best to address all the issues you raised. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking good. I'm happy for this to pass now. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)