Talk:Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 20:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
GA Review
[edit]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)
@Judgesurreal777: 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)