Talk:Yuffie Kisaragi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 14:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to be reviewing. Expect the review in a few days. If it does not meet the criteria I will hold it for one week. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Chronology of her appearances can be confused with her age chronologically in the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII subsection. While this is also a weird way to list different games under the section; each game was separate they can confuse the reader. Its minor, but I really believe that fixing the 'appearances' should be removed from the 'personality' aspect, with the latter being its own subsection.	Y
(b) (MoS)	No concerns	Y

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Sticks to the material pretty well.	Y
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Its appropriate	Y
(c) (original research)	One point, "During later development of the game, the Final Fantasy VII team thought about removing both Yuffie and Vincent Valentine due to time limitations, but both were made as hidden characters." Probably covered in the source, but that should be cited. It is a major claim which can be disputed as original research and not intentional.	Y

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Covers the official material in detail	Y
(b) (focused)	Deals with the role in said material.	Y

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
No concerns.	Y

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No edit wars.	Y

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Y
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Y

Result

Result	Notes
Y	The concerns will be fixed, I trust, I cannot hold it against you though either. No reason not to pass.

Discussion

Splitting the 'Personality' aspect from the 'Appearance' is my only concern, its not terribly bad, but its not brilliant either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)