Talk:Guilty Gear Isuka/GA1

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

Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 11:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria This article is far from GA-Class.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * The prose is very muddled throughout the entire article. The Gameplay section is incorrectly written in past tense, and full of very poor and disjointed syntax. "With the experience points acquired in Boost Mode can be used in another new mode of the game: the Robo-Ky II Factory" simply makes no sense. The poor syntax carries through into Reception as well, with many disjointed and simply confusing statements.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * The list of characters in the Playable characters sub-section is very unappealing, and the section is too small to stand on its own in its current state. The list should be converted into columns. However, in the article's current state, this will cause the Infobox to bite into the other sections. Expansion to the Gameplay and Development sections as necessary will combat this.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * The claim "although he did not provide a more thorough review" in Reception is original research. If Damian Francis didn't provide a thorough enough review, it shouldn't be mentioned in the article.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * The Gameplay section is very sparsely written, to the extent that I still don't fully understand how the game works after trying to read it. It needs significant expansion. The Development section does not accurately summarise the development of the game. A quick trawl through the previews and reviews of the game would surely provide more information to help expand the section.
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 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'm failing upfront as this article is nowhere near GA-Class. Its nominator,, has recently been overhauling the article but nominated the article far too soon. I'd encourage him to continue work, and then go for B-Class and have the article peer reviewed before pursuing another GAN. CR 4 ZE (t) 11:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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'm failing upfront as this article is nowhere near GA-Class. Its nominator,, has recently been overhauling the article but nominated the article far too soon. I'd encourage him to continue work, and then go for B-Class and have the article peer reviewed before pursuing another GAN. CR 4 ZE (t) 11:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I'm failing upfront as this article is nowhere near GA-Class. Its nominator,, has recently been overhauling the article but nominated the article far too soon. I'd encourage him to continue work, and then go for B-Class and have the article peer reviewed before pursuing another GAN. CR 4 ZE (t) 11:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)