Talk:Spira (Final Fantasy)/GA1

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

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 07:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take up this review. I should have something for the nominator within a day or two. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria'


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * No grammar errors as far as I could see, just a few minor issues that I've straightened out. Update: second look and look at the talk page has revealed multiple section links that need fixing.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * I'm a little skeptical about using Yahoo! Voices as a reference. In general, the fictional areas seem to not have enough references. I think you can just use quotes, and I think you can use the original games' articles and the characters article for most of them.
 * C. No original research:
 * I don't see a reference for that interpretation of the pyreflies.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * That's something this article does very well.
 * B. Focused:
 * I'm not sure the piece about the Sphere Grid should be in there. That's related to the gameplay of Final Fantasy X, not its world.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Nothing obvious.
 * 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:
 * File:Final Fantasy X - Zanarkand ruins.png and File:Ffxmap.jpg are of good quality and seem to have appropriate rationals.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fix the issues I've cited or provide clear reasons for them, and I think this article could pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the pyrefly/firefly connection, its really obvious given the lore, but it is synthy and I should have removed it when I improved the page originally. As for the "Yahoo voices" - its a source that draws the connection, but I think it is passable for an interpretative source and not an "offical account" of the meaning. It is possible to remove it easy enough, but other venues have commented on it and that is verifiable and well-thought speculation. Its an issue to jump from A and B to get C, but this is at least a direct source showing it that isn't original research on part of the editors. As for the sphere grid... good point, but I don't know if I should move it into the analysis section. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * :Given the new information, I guess I can let the Yahoo Voices reference pass. As to the Sphere Grid, I think it should be removed. It doesn't seem to have any relation to the world or the characters, only the gameplay. Oh, and I spotted something else. The Famitsu-referenced info in the Concept and Creation section needs rewording: "its scenery was beautifully reborn" seems more like promotional blurb than anything else. And the piece about the music does not seem to have a place here either. Unless there's some detailed information directly concerning the graphical upgrade the world received, I might remove it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed those parts, entirely. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the links were already fixed, but a few persisted and had to be cleansed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's fine. Now it's just the lack of quote references (just as a note, I am also using Ivalice as a rough template for this article). --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed the one at the beginning, but surely you are not asking for in-game terminology to be sourced to in-game quotes. Not even plots need to have references for such. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed those parts, entirely. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the links were already fixed, but a few persisted and had to be cleansed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's fine. Now it's just the lack of quote references (just as a note, I am also using Ivalice as a rough template for this article). --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed the one at the beginning, but surely you are not asking for in-game terminology to be sourced to in-game quotes. Not even plots need to have references for such. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

✅. After due consideration, I think that this article can pass. Others can do work on them if they wish, but as it stands, I feel that this can pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing, its been good to work with you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)