Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Final Fantasy III/2

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Final Fantasy III

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept The issues brought up during the review have been addressed. AIRcorn (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Legacy section does not contain any references.--Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note a couple other paragraphs (not in Legacy) that do not have references. Chris857 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have the major contributors and wikiprojects been notified? AIRcorn (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Done AIRcorn (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues I noticed:

  • At least one instance where a number under 10 should be spelled out and isn't
  • References that need verified as reliable or are unreliable:
  • cubed3.com (verify)

:*RPGFan (unreliable)

  • zgameBrink.com (verify)
  • gwn.com (verify -- may be a different domain owner now as it seems totally unrelated)
  • Daryl's Library
  • Soundtrack Central
  • Game Music CD Information Database
  • g-wie gorilla
  • The reference format is not consistent. Dates and authors are missing on some items, one ref is a bare URL

I didn't check the prose, but that's what I found on a quick once-over. --Teancum (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this should be demoted or not but I do have one question. Do you have evidence that RPGfan is unreliable? I ask because on the checklist section of WP:VG/S (which you cited as evidence that the site is unreliable) RPGFan is listed with a green checkmark which according to that to this statement on that page This is a checklist/index of past discussions. Sources with green checkmarks (✓) are currently considered to meet reliability requirements says the exact opposite. If that assessment is inaccurate a new discussion may be needed to have the site declared unreliable but at this time the site is not considered to be unrliable. I checked the other sources but could not find anything one way or the other.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, got it confused with OnRPG, sorry. --Teancum (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started cleaning up this article to save it here; marking off things inline as I go. --PresN 18:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up/referenced the Legacy section, which was the initial complaint in the GAR. --PresN 21:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Final_Fantasy_III/2&oldid=1090662887"