Talk:Final Fantasy II/GA2

GA Review

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

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:Y

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

(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); andY

(c) it contains no original research.Y

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

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

I'm still going over the prose, but in the meantime images need alt text. Apparently the suitable captions link in the criteria has recently changed to not require that for "all images", however it's easy to do and this is GA class after all, so I'm requiring it in my review.

More to come as I finish reading it over later on.

• Alt text added. --PresN 16:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Teancum (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

PASS - I was happy to find no issue with the prose at all. Everyone who worked on the article deserves a pat on the back! --Teancum (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)