Talk:Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 20:45, 14 June 2020 (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:

GA Review

This is going to be quick, because the article is amazing and fantastic and I always said it was, but I have found a few nits to pick :)

• There is a message on the free use image “ Add a one-line explanation of what this file represents” - please do so
  • Done.
• I feel there should be just a bit more information on the Chocobo and the Moogle since they have ended up representing the series in a similar way to the Slime represents Dragon Quest. I know there is more Chocobo information on the main chocobo page. Again, not too much, but just a bit.
  • I've added some extra on the moogle. I thought more information on them should be sensibly incorporated into the articles themselves. This one's already large enough as it is.
• The other “big thing would be reception. Does the reception section cover all the elements from the article? I’m not exactly sure what I would say should be added, I just generally notice it is small relative to a very robust article.
  • I realise it looks small, and that's because I was limiting myself to discussion of the series impact as a whole. Most retrospectives focus on single games within the series, and this article covers the series/franchise as a whole. I also wanted to avoid "best of" and "worst of" lists. Plus, there really wasn't much overarching commentary that didn't fall into those categories, which I avoided for the sake of clarity and balance.
• Also, I think you might want to consider a three paragraph, somewhat larger introduction. You have so much material here that is fascinating, there should be more glimpses of what’s in store for the reader with a longer introduction.
  • I've expanded the lead a little.
• Those are my thoughts. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Judgesurreal777: I've done edits, and hopefully addressed concerns. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You added just the right amount of Moogle info, I never knew that about them! That info should probably at some point find it’s way into the Mana (series) article, and the creators too! :) The introduction now is delightful, as it gives the reader a hint of the large scope and breadth of the article. Giving an article like this a Green Plus is a mere formality. I don’t know if the reviewers at FAC will appreciate this like I do, but this article is very special: it’s a hundred former articles that were stubs and junk and trivia turned into one beautiful work of art. Here’s a Good Article icon, I hope one day it will have a star and be on the front page! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)