Talk:Trials of Mana/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 18:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: PresN (talk · contribs) 19:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I shall be reviewing this article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Overall article looks good, I'll go through it and post whatever suggestions I find below. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * All changes made, the article passes. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * All changes made, the article passes. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All changes made, the article passes. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions
 * " A single variety of weapon is available for each character", confusion over this typo whether there are multiple varieties of weapons, a single weapon or different weapons of a specific type?
 * Gameplay section: third para
 * The pipe link "Level progression" can be changed to something specifying that it's actually gaining a experience level--I first thought it meant progress through a game level.
 * "as a choice is given regarding where to invest a character statistics" surely you mean invest from a choice of different stats?
 * According to a figure, a "Manastone" is required for crossing level 18, whereas it's only mentioned about a special item needed for level 32.
 * "characters or elements who appear in different titles are best considered alternate versions of each other", means each game right? I think that would be clearer.
 * "cute little girl who lives in Wendel" can be removed, I think it's trivial and don't see the point of it being in quotes.
 * Why is Deathjester and Heath mentioned as the adversaries. Isn't Heath a good guy? or some more explanation is required here? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed all listed here. -- Pres N  06:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. (ping) -- Pres  N  22:09, 7 April 2014‎ (UTC)
 * " the game did not tie up any of the people involved in translation; "...I'm not sure I follow this. I get the idea of the para but who is being referred to here? Have they been introduced somewhere else or referred to?
 * "It has been described as a "more refined..." quotation needs attribution as to who said it.
 * Same for "The style of the album is described as "experimental",..."
 * And "been described as covering many different musical styles, such as "Debussian impressionist..." -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "...stated that the graphics were one of the best three of all SNES games,..." I didn't get which three games (this trilogy?) are being referred to here, clarify? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Star Ocean and Tales of Phantasia, now added, I just didn't think it was that relevant which specific games one reviewer thought were the only ones that were better looking. -- Pres N  17:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC) (ping)

Done -- Pres N  18:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC) (ping)
 * First part of "Reception" is a bit confusing. What would make it clearer is stating explicitly that the Gamefan review was in the release year. Using 'contemporary' and 'retrospective' together confused me at first read. I've also noticed that most of the main reviews are written post-2000; the "Critics have rated the game highly..." statement can be changed mentioning this year gap.
 * "Music"
 * "Kikuta completed it with little assistance, having performed the sound selection, editing, effect design, and data encoding himself. He spent nearly 24 hours a day in his office, alternating between composing and editing to create an immersive three-dimensional sound, just as he had for the music of the previous game." Shorten this sentence, there's a bit of extra unneeded emphasis here.
 * "The soundtrack's music covers both... "serene" ones", would be better replaced with the full direct quote with attribution. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, the article passes. The lead was written quite well, couldn't find anything wrong there. The article satisfies the rest of the criteria. Good job. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)