Talk:Persona 4/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: SCB '92 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This is my first time reviewing, so here I go.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- Mostly good,
though I think there needs to be a citation at the end of the first paragraph of the "gameplay" section; there might be a citation needed at the end of the paragraph in the "characters" subsection.
- Mostly good,
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Like it says in the to-do list, there might be a little more work needed in the merchandise subsection
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- there was a bit of an edit war almost a month ago, but I guess it's been resolved.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
I think the caption of the screenshot of the gameplay needs to have more detail in it, than just "A standard battle in Persona 4"; there needs to be an explanation about the HUD put into the caption: the dialogue box at the top, the action box at the left, and what the right hand of the screen is indicating.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm putting this on hold so you can sort the things out. I'll give it 168 hours.If it's done, I'll pass it, but since it is my first review, I might need a second opinion.
- Pass or Fail:
SCB '92 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review.
- About the merchandise subsection, I think as far as Persona 4's merchandise coverage is concerned, those are all that are covered by online media. I could use some tips on what to work on the merchandise subsection if the concern is expansion.
- Just for my convenience, the Gameplay section's first paragraph can be cited from the earlier sources. For the character paragraph, we'll need in-game citations.
- For clarification, the edit war in question was actually vandalism.
- Due to the nature of my work, I can only focus on fixing the article after two days. Hope I will be here in time. — Blue。 17:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I got some new complaints: like the previous reviewer pointed out, in the references section, some web publications are italicized while others aren't. A good example is when Wired is not italicized in ref 47, but italicized in ref 62; remove the italicization of the publishers in the refs: Kotaku.com, Computer Entertainment Suppliers Association (CESA), Edge-online.com, Wired; also ref 56 has to get rid of the "GameTrailers = 9.3/10" and have a retrieval date and publisher, and ref 54 has to have a retrievel date and publisher too.
For the merchandise subsection, I suggest a mention of the Persona 4 guides, Persona Club P4, Official Design Works, the Izanagi and Jiraiya plush dolls, and possibly the Social Link expansion pack, PERSONA 4 Cell Phone Strap and Persona 4 tarot cards—SCB '92 (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand.... should I italicize the web publications, or should I remove them altogether? — Blue。 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
remove the italicization altogether—SCB '92 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Can I get more clarification there because some like Wired are italicized in their article, if youre saying I should remove all the italics, the template seems to be doing that automatically. — Blue。 07:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
actually, leave the italics in the magazine publishers in the sources; I'll make the minor changes myself, then give it a GA status——SCB '92 (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Now that the references are consistent, I've given this article a GA status; good job Bluerfn for making this article achieve this status, and I'd encourage you to review a GA-nominated article yourself, preferably a video game article that is up for GA-nomination like Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars; again good job and keep up the good work—SCB '92 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your cooperation and contributions. It means a lot to me. I'd review a GA nominee when I have the confidence. — Blue。 02:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)