Talk:Bullet Witch/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 12:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   I'd wikilink Gatling gun

   "the scenario had a somber tone to suit its setting despite not being fatalistic" - can you elaborate on this at all; why would it be considered fatalistic in the first place? Maybe I've missed something but I find this confusing.

   "The in-game cinematics were directed by Yasui. The higher graphical power of the console enabled a greater degree of character expression than Yasui's previous work" - I'd merge these sentences. They follow several very short sentences which begin to read awkwardly.

   "#21, #7" - see MOS:HASH

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   What makes QJ.net a reliable source? I can't seem to find any information about their editorial staff.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pretty close to passing, Placing on hold until minor issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

   @Freikorp: I've addressed the grammar issues you pointed out. As to QJ.net (it stands for Quick Jump Gaming Network and it's been around since 2005), I'm using it for two reasons: it's an original source with information not found elsewhere, and it didn't raise comments in the FF Type-0 FA or my GA nominations for FF Agito and Tales of Destiny 2. If you still feel strongly about it, I can remove it, but its associated information will also have to be removed as that's the only real source for it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

   @ProtoDrake: I don't feel strongly about removing it partially because there's no reason to doubt what is attributed to it but also as it's the only source of debatable reliability; I'd be a bit iffy if there were several but since there's only one I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt. I'm passing this now. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)