Talk:Muramasa: The Demon Blade/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 23:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I am claiming this article for Good Article Review! I will have some notes soon as to where it lies on the article quality spectrum. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Plot Section- "of her soul is unharmed" - Probably should be "if". "reconnect with now earlier Japanese people" - should be "how". - Is wabi sabi a design concept? The Wikipedia article link indicates it is, and if it is it should be noted for clarity. Reception Section - The Destructoid review really doesn't say what the reviewer liked or did not like. Destructoid is also misspelled further down the section The writing is overall good, though I expect if this goes to featured article candidacy some will want you to trim down the plot section and continue to tweak the text for coherence and flow; but for our purposes, it is a clean pass. I've addressed all your above concerns. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article has two hidden cleanup tags; Official_website_different_in_Wikidata_and_Wikipedia, and Category:CS1_maint:_Multiple_names:_authors_list. Also, the articles categorization and wiki linking seem appropriate I don't know how to handle hidden tags. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	http://www.mmv.co.jp/special/game/wii/oboromuramasa Needs to be archived, it showed up in the Check Links tool. Also right above this review on the talk page are references that were auto archived that need to be checked or fixed. Also, all references should should list their publishers and wiki link where appropriate. External link updated, and the Play Magazine link is no longer used in the article. And all refernces have links to publishers were possible: Siliconera, Inside Games, ect. don't have Wikipedia articles. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
	2b. 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).	Please show that Inside games, VGMDB, and Game Watch Impress are reliable sources. Otherwise, all the reviews in the review chart in the reception section are properly cited, and all the references are properly formatted. VGMDB seemed accepted on the FA review for FF Type-0, and both Game Watch Impress (Tales of Destiny 2/SMT: Digital Devil Saga/FF Agito/Ni no Kuni: Dominion of the Dark Djinn) and Inside Games (Tales of Innocence/KH Chain of Memories/Persona (series)) have been treated as reliable sources in multiple articles, so I felt justified in using them as sources, particularly as the interview with Game Watch Impress holds information unavailable anywhere else. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	There are many reliable sources that are attached to all the content of the article. I also checked a sample of several references from different sections, and they clearly contain the information that they claim to reference.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I ran the copyright checker and there is no evidence of any level of plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All the usual sections are present and full of contents including gameplay development and reception. here are two links I found that may or may not help take a look at them and see if they will. http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/01/muramasa-staff-answers-fans-disgusting-questions/ http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/muramasa-the-demon-blade-will-accommodate-action-and-rpg-fans/ I looked at them earlier, and didn't find anything worth including. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Though tremendously detailed, I see nothing I would call extraneous or unnecessary.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Nothing discernible as an opinion or editorial is present in the article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Ever since the nominator finished his edits, the article has been extremely stable at a very high-quality.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The images are tagged appropriately, are low resolution, and are limited to illustrations of the games involved, of which there are several versions.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images include the games cover, a gameplay screenshot from the original we version, and a group shot of characters from a side quest in the later version of the game. The images are captioned, and are important to have in order to establish context and the artistic quality and inspiration of the game.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold for seven days, and if progress is made extensions are possible. Please let me know here or on my talk page if you have any questions or need any help! I've addressed your concerns. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC) And I'm passing the article, fantastic job as always! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)