Talk:Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series/GA1

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

Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 20:45, 14 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:

GA Review
This is going to be quick, because the article is amazing and fantastic and I always said it was, but I have found a few nits to pick :)
 * There is a message on the free use image “ Add a one-line explanation of what this file represents” - please do so
 * Done.
 * I feel there should be just a bit more information on the Chocobo and the Moogle since they have ended up representing the series in a similar way to the Slime represents Dragon Quest. I know there is more Chocobo information on the main chocobo page. Again, not too much, but just a bit.
 * I've added some extra on the moogle. I thought more information on them should be sensibly incorporated into the articles themselves. This one's already large enough as it is.
 * The other “big thing would be reception. Does the reception section cover all the elements from the article? I’m not exactly sure what I would say should be added, I just generally notice it is small relative to a very robust article.
 * I realise it looks small, and that's because I was limiting myself to discussion of the series impact as a whole. Most retrospectives focus on single games within the series, and this article covers the series/franchise as a whole. I also wanted to avoid "best of" and "worst of" lists. Plus, there really wasn't much overarching commentary that didn't fall into those categories, which I avoided for the sake of clarity and balance.
 * Also, I think you might want to consider a three paragraph, somewhat larger introduction. You have so much material here that is fascinating, there should be more glimpses of what’s in store for the reader with a longer introduction.
 * I've expanded the lead a little.
 * Those are my thoughts. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I've done edits, and hopefully addressed concerns. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You added just the right amount of Moogle info, I never knew that about them! That info should probably at some point find it’s way into the Mana (series) article, and the creators too! :) The introduction now is delightful, as it gives the reader a hint of the large scope and breadth of the article. Giving an article like this a Green Plus is a mere formality. I don’t know if the reviewers at FAC will appreciate this like I do, but this article is very special: it’s a hundred former articles that were stubs and junk and trivia turned into one beautiful work of art. Here’s a Good Article icon, I hope one day it will have a star and be on the front page! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)