Talk:Dragon Quest (video game)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

I am hereby signing on to review this article for GA status. This is my first GA review, but I am familiar with the procedures and am going to do my best to thoroughly review this and hopefully get it a GA label. In addition, do not take any offence to the criticisms I make as I am just trying to make this the best article it can be :) GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Also, I am noting that I have never played this game or even viewed this article before I began to review this, so no conflict of interest exists. Any edit from me on this page will be very minor and are because they are necessary for GA status but is simple enough for me to edit on my own. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still having hardware issues with my pc. i'm posting this from school where i'm about to leave. I ordered the parts, but the pc will be ~week till its fixed.陣内Jinnai 23:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back.陣内Jinnai 23:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

  • I'm not sure what is wrong with citation number one but it is awkward and detracting. Solutions include putting it in its own note section separate from references OR rewriting it as a reference (recommended)
    • I assume you were talking about the n 1 reference? That's a notation, not a citation. I separated it, but as it's the only one i think a separate section may be superflous. I separated specifically from the cites to help distinguish notations from actual cited sources.陣内Jinnai 06:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a few pieces of info rely on the published "editors of Nintendo power" citation, which isn't bad and doesn't even need to be changed, but it would be nice to supplement those with some other sources as well for easy verification.
  • The Amazon citation is the only bad cite here. Definitely change this before I can GA it because it is only there to give info on how it was compiled into other forms. This can probably be found elsewhere would would be ideal.
    • Major retailers, which include amazon, are considered reliable sources for dates, titles, isbn numbers, pages, etc. IE basic info. They are RSes of last resort, but in this case that's all there is.陣内Jinnai 06:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the Amazon, citations are good, thorough, and passable by GA criteria

Images[edit]

  • All images are well used, captioned, sized, and placed. The images themselves are great for GA status

*Nearly every image has a poor free-use rationale and need to be improved for GA status. See the image for the cover for the best rationale.

Images are good, but free-use rationales need better summaries to be GA status

Writing[edit]

*The second paragraph is just one long sentence. This run-on should be split into a few sentences to form a complete thought.

  • Its effects on the console RPG genre have been compared to above and beyond the more widely recognized, in the west, title of Final Fantasy. I would rewrite this sentence for better flow and more common wording.
  • I went ahead and removed the red wikilinks in the article. I would unlink common terms like "Tomato" and "Savegame" and avoid reusing wikilinks multiple times for the same word like the character Erdrick. Also, the link for Erdrick links back to this exact article, making it null and useless. Remove linking to the same page, it only detracts.
    • Restoring redlinks per WP:REDLINK. If you think any of them have specific reason to be removed they need to be done on a case-by-case basis.
    • As for excess linkage, i removed most of them. The duplicates i kept were:
      1. Some of those in the lead
      2. Those in infoboxes
      3. Really obscure terms like linkages to Early Modern English.陣内Jinnai 07:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot feels incomplete. Does the story actually end with the bridge extending? If so, it should be put something like "the game concludes with the bridge extending to the Dragonlord's castle, leaving the hero to approach" or something like that.
  • The tiny second plot paragraph should be placed in the first sentence like: "Chronologically, Dragon Warrior takes place after DW III and before DW II."
    • I moved the paragraph to the be first. See how it looks.陣内Jinnai 07:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Middle of Manga section: ...a child by the name of is born with the name... name of what? typo?
  • The soundtrack section is very short. This isn't a problem, but if more knowledge on it exists, it should be expanded.
    • I went and expanded it for you, Jinnai. --PresN 18:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reception section calls the game Dragon Quest, but the article is for the english version (since it is on the english wiki) so it should be called Dragon Warrior instead.
    • Changed several references. Those left refer specifically to the Japanese release which is listed as being Dragon Quest, not Dragon Warrior.陣内Jinnai 21:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki extras[edit]

  • Added reception infobox to accumulate scores
    • Added a review box+some extra reviews.陣内Jinnai 23:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

Once the few problems I put down are fixed, this game is easily a GA article. It is well written, well cited, has good and useful images with good rationales, stable, accurate, and presents no bias without addressing opinion beforehand. Good work and let me know once these are fixed and I will proudly give this a GA label :D GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dragon_Quest_(video_game)/GA1&oldid=630523208"