Talk:Kiki Kaikai/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose looks like it could be improved, but it don't know its that bad.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   some contriversial statements need to be cited and the ports need to be specified which changed mechanics and what

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   What it does cover, it covers well. However, a brief glance through some Japanese reliable sources shows that the article is lacking coverage on several spin-off titles at the very least, more than enough to fail the criteria here.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The only reviews are from more modern magazines looking back at the game, which the reviewers might sometimes tend to be harsher on items they dislike about that era, but were common enough at the time no one would give it a second thought. There are absolutely no reviews from the game's release.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   The usage for the screenshots does not explain why each is needed. They both have the same reasons which begs to question, what does the second add.
   
   The infobox one is also tagged with needing a smaller version.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   holding this for now as it may be possible to fix it in a week. The biggest issue will be print sources.

   Failing as there has been no activity on the page to improve the article since i placed the hold a week ago.陣内_Jinnai 03:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)