Talk:Dragon Quest III/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article became a Good Article a year and a half ago and it pretty much went down-hill. The key points for its reassessment include:

• The Class section is tagged with a additional citations needed tag.

• In fact, the Characters section is like the Class section, but shorter and not really informative, meaning it fails criterion 1.

• EGM, Nintendo Power, and Gamepro aren't referenced parts in the Reception section, thus (but not sure) fails criterion 2.

• Both screenshots in the article are improper use of fair use images, a failure of criterion 6 of the WP:GACR.

So, in today's standards for a Good Article, this article should be demoted and maybe become a C-class article.Give me your thoughts. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delist (very regretfully, as this is one of my personal favorite RPGs) for the following reasons:

• The content in the Class section, while it may be argued that it's verifiable, only takes from one sources and is written rather poorly. Content also consists is minutiae of the DW3 gameplay, running afoul of Wikipedia is not a game guide. Gameplay section is written in the same fashion and likewise rather poorly. Plot and Setting subsections are the same thing; the content is either written in-universe or, if there is any real-world perspective given, seems to delve into original research. All of this is more than enough to fail GA criterion #1.
• The first gameplay image does not help readers any in understanding the article further. Images (especially non-free images) need to complement the prose; that is, if the image was to be removed, would the reader lose any understanding of the content it's trying to cover? In this case, no. The same can be argued with the SNES screenshot. Also, boxart is not of lowest-resolution or size, failing WP:NFCC#8. I would argue the necessity of the album cover in the article. In any case, all images need to improve their non-free rationale or, alternatively, be removed. Clearly fails GA criterion #6.
• There are huge tracts of unsourced content throughout the article. Fails #2. MuZemike 17:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Though editors put a lot of good effort into expanding the article, it's C-class. The huge amount of character-class info is mostly yap-yap-yap, yet the main gameplay section is tiny and skips over the relevant details in favour of the options to sort the inventory. The production info is virtually non-existent (2 sentences), though the SNES remake info is good. Reception is also hit/miss, the info on units sold is very desirable but the actual reception information is non-existent - three review scores is it. No, while what's here is certainly good to have this article is neither balanced, broad or well-written. Someoneanother 02:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, since two people say delist, I'll delist it and give it C-class. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)