Talk:Tales of Graces/GA1

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

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 18:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I will review this article. It seems that it has sat at WP:GAN for over two months now, and it's a shame that it's had to, because as I read it, it does appear quite well-written. Let's take a look at how it breaks down and come up with a result. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 18:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Very well written all across the board, and meets both 1a and 1b. I have a couple of slight concerns with the length of the plot and character listing, per MOS:FICTION, and the use of short paragraphs with their own subheadings in the Media adaptations section, per MOS:PARAGRAPHS.  However, after having read them over a couple of times, I would say that the plot is fairly well balanced given the genre of the game, as well as the amount of gameplay, development, and reception info; and that the short paragraphs are just long enough to meet the manual of style guidelines.  These might be concerns raised at WP:FAC if this article can make it that far, but in my opinion it does satisfy the GA criteria for the time being.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Checklinks reveals no dead links, and as I perused the sources, everything appears to be from reliable sources. I had to doublecheck Andriasang.com, but it does appear to be a reliable source.  Again, though I believe it meets the GA criteria at this time, I might suggest one or two slight changes.  First, with having so many references in so many categories, it may make sense to add columns to the subsections to help make the references more legible in what might be considered a wall of text, and secondly I might suggest changing either the notation "Game X" or the subheading "Primary references".  Though it is apparent to me that these are for the game, which is listed, and clicking a "Game X" link takes one to the reference, one may not catch that and wonder what it refers to, so maybe a citation such a "P1, P2..." etc. might be a suggestion for that, just something which makes it easier on the reader to make the correlation.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Slightly concerned about the plot and character length, but it doesn't appear to be overly detailed. Again, might be a concern at FAC, but I believe it makes the GA criteria at this time.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Looks to be quite neutral. Reception section illustrates good balance.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Looks very stable.
 * 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):
 * Both images are fair use, and rationales are provided. Given that this is an article about a copyrighted work, I don't see more pictures going in unless someone can get their hands on a free image of a developer, or something of the sort, and even then such would add little to the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Very well written! An excellent job.  Despite my concerns, I do believe this pretty clearly does meet the GA criteria at this time, and I hope the feedback I've given will help out in pushing this article up to FAC.  Keep up the great work!