Talk:Vanillaware/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 17:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

Prose

Lede

• for the note, could we explicitly state what translation it is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• (later Square Enix), seems a little irrelevant for the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• The company has become famous - can we change this? "Famous" is relative. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Osaka and Atlus are duplinks Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

General

• Fantasy Earth moved away from its premise of a human-vampire war to a more traditional fantasy setting involving princesses - might be worth saying traditional... for a RPG. I don't think fantasy princesses is a traditional premise in everyday culture. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Production was completed in 2006, but Atlus delayed its release into the following year so as not to cannibalize the market for their other titles, particularly Persona 3. - I feel like this needs a citation as being the reason. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Ultimately, Dragon's Crown was a great success for Vanillaware - can we quantify why this was true? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Could we get a source for the list under "games developed"? I realise it's implied from the rest of the text, but for a list, it's worth being explicit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Life simulation game is a duplink Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definitely not mandatory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
  • Hi ProtoDrake. Article looks very good. I'll pass this one, as it clearly meets the requirements. I have a few comments that might be worth investigating. Great job. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.