Talk:Fire Emblem: The Blazing Blade/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 18:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Will review in probably a few days' time. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 18:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Johanna: Just checking if you still plan to/are able to do it, or if you want to hand it over to another reviewer.--IDV^talk 09:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. My December just turned out to be really busy. Looks like a solid article. Here are my comments, and then I would be happy to pass. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 21:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

General

• I always ask this for GAN's that deal with foreign language sources, but do you feel confident enough in your Japanese to be able to accurately gain information from the sources? (I noticed that your Babel only has ja-1).

Lead

• When first stating the Japanese title, I would use Template:Nihongo rather than just the Hepburn romanization followed by a footnote, as this is easier to access.
• "Western audiences" is more specific than "the West"
• Use "was released" as your current construction is possibly incorrect.
• Second paragraph: specify that Elibe is the kingdom before you mention it at the end of the sentence
• "The gameplay..." Split this sentence into two, so that the second one starts with "characters are"

Gameplay

• Specify the image's fair use rationale and expand the in-article caption to include the distinctive aspects that the file displays.
• Link to non-player character at your first use of the term, as we don't know who will be reading this article.
• Beginning of same sentence: change to "the game divides", as this is a more active construction
• Use of the term rock-paper-scissors might be a bit confusing to those relatively unfamiliar with the ins and outs of gameplay, as it might indicate to some that weapon damage is based on chance. I would probably remove it.
• "dubbed the Magic Trinity" is this name from the game itself? If so, you should specify that.

Synopsis

• A more precise term for "grandfather's brother" is "great-uncle"
• Final sentence: should be "as he meets"

Development

• Be consistent about whether you refer to the game by its English or Japanese title, especially in this section. I would recommend the English one.
• For the first paragraph, try to vary your constructions so it reads less like a list of credits. I can help with that if you want--just ask.
• "the central character Eliwood was fairly weak and fitted the concept of an "easy" mode" I am not sure what this part of the sentence means and cannot check the source because it is in Japanese. Can you possibly rephrase this?
• I took the liberty of altering the last sentence of this section as well. Take a look and make sure you agree with my wording change.

Release

• Same comment about how you refer to the game
• What is RPGamer and why is it a reliable source?
• What does the translation of the Japanese title have to do with the rest of the paragraph? I would remove this sentence and put this information with the lead per my comment there.
• Put commas before and after Sakurai's name
• Why is "Nintendo Everything" reliable?

Reception

• This is a just a personal preference, but can you put a critical consensus at the top of the section per your segment in the lead?
• "noted the game's superiority" because this is an opinion, use a different construction like "believed that the game was superior"
• "short and lacking" what did this reviewer believe to be lacking?
• The first two sentences of the "Accolades" subsection belong near the top of the overall reception section, as they pertain to review aggregation rather than awards. After you remove them, be sure to add a new opening sentence to this subsection.

References

• Other than the few source issues I mentioned above, your sources look pretty good. The external links feature in the toolset on this page lists one dead link, but it is actually successfully archived.

@Johanna: I've addressed all the grammer issues you raised, and done my best with a few of the other points. The information there was actually available through an online compilation of development/interview information that I found online and translated with some help from Google Translate, or from sources where an independent English translation is available such as the Sakurai interview. I didn't include anything I wasn't sure about. RPGamer is accepted as a source by Wikipedia and I've had no trouble with it on other GAs (it's been around for over ten years), while the author of the Nintendo Everything post is accepted as a suitable source - any other author and it would be questionable. The note in the lead for the Japanese title was a style I adopted to avoid clutter - I've used it successfully for the GAs on Sacred Stones, Shadow Dragon, and New Mystery, so I didn't think I needed to make the change here. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: Thanks for your timely in-article fixes. The prose seems up to GA standard now. I just have one follow-up question about the Nintendo Everything source--who exactly is Brian Ashcraft? Is he a reviewer at other publications, affiliated with Nintendo, or is there something else that makes him reliable? Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 18:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Johanna: I can't actually remember the occation. As there's some question, I've replaced it with the relevant magazine citation. I hope this sorts the problem. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: Great. Pass. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 01:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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: