Talk:Golden Sun: Dark Dawn/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Haha169 (talk · contribs) 01:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is a wonderful article. It has almost all the makings of a GA, but there are some nit-picky things that needs to be dealt with.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• Most of the article is fine, but I find the Plot section in particular to be awkwardly written; in fact, it seems to be a similar paraphrase of official plots released by Camelot. Specifically: "continents shifted, new countries emerged, and new species appeared". Also, mention of the flying machine in the beginning of paragraph 3 is sudden and a little random. To me, the plot section reads like the result of a longer piece of writing that has been chopped up. I would suggest re-writing this section with your own knowledge of the game's plot in accordance to Wikipedia's style.
• Also, per manual of style, change all the numbers that can be written as one word into letters (and for consistency, I would suggest all the numbers in the article, since none of them are that large). For example, you would change "11" to "eleven" per WP:NUMERAL
• Try doing a quick copyedit on this article. I suggest copy/pasting the text to a word document and re-reading it with a critical eye. Some sentences like: "Unlike the first two Golden Sun games, Dark Dawn features a smarter intelligent targeting system that allows one of two party members who initially target the same enemy to intelligently target a random undefeated enemy once the initial enemy is defeated by another member." Is pretty long, rambly, and re-uses the same vocabulary.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   You did some great research here. I think this is the first Golden Sun article to use published material as sources. However, there are some gaps in the in-line sourcing (such as at the very end of the intro to the Gameplay section). These things should be easily remedied, however.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Reading about the real-world parts of the article was a pleasure. Well written and very neutral.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I would seriously suggest adding another image into the article to illustrate what plot development in Dark Dawn would be like. Take a look at the other Golden Sun game/series articles for ideas.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Like I said, these are pretty nit-picky. Overall this article is almost there! Once you have completed the changes to your satisfaction please drop a message in my talk page! Good luck! Oh, and be sure to check the dablinks tool!--haha169 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Update There has been no response from the nominator in over a week, even after leaving a notification on his/her talk page. Because of this I am going to fail and close this nomination. Hopefully the suggestions on this page will be useful as a reference for any future GANs for this article. --haha169 (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Comments by Bridies Not to be a pain but I don't think this article is "almost there". More issues:

• The lead does not adequately summarise the article: it has none of the reception info.
• Needs a copy edit. Aside from the stuff mentioned above, the reception section has mismatched tenses and broken sentences like besides, game's encyclopedia system would allow new players get familiar with the previous games... and Critics found battle too easy[43][53] and cut-scenes dialogue too long and 1UP.com said the game's long dialogue scene is just like its predecessors that...
• Not so good on the breadth/detail criterion IMO: a lot on gameplay and plot/characters but not so much on the development and reception. For better balance, it needs to cut down some of the in-game stuff for which there's no secondary commentary.
• There is some commentary on the in-game stuff which needs secondary sources, for example: Dark Dawn, like its predecessors, uses the traditional role-playing video game formula and One of the most distinguishing features in Dark Dawn is the Djinn system. It's possible they come from citations a sentence or two further on, in which case some clarification here will suffice. bridies (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)