Talk:The Legend of Dragoon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Imaginestigers (talk · contribs) 02:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Tagging this one. You can expect the full review in about 24 hours. Imaginestigers (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Hi there, Z1720! I'll be carrying out this GA review. I've read the entire article, and followed through the citations. There are a few minor issues which currently prevent me from giving this article a pass.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   There are no issues with the spelling or grammar of the page. There were some minor quibbles, but I have made changes to improve them. Outstanding is that Characters and setting requires some work. There is jargon presented without explanation (Winglies and Gigantos) and there are two footnotes (one is attached to Rose is the primary female lead and the other is The game's genre is fantasy) which are not attached to punctuation. I would recommend the section be re-written to convey its information in a more straightforward way. Begin with the name of the setting, followed by its primary genre influences. Explain clearly the differing species of the game. Then, using the information you have provided, briefly highlight the characters. Consider what might be redundant information which can already be found in the plot summary. magic-user should not be hyphenated (and could become 'mage' or whatever the game uses as terminology, so long it is consistent elsewhere.

Using the instruction manual, I added information about Winglies. The sources do not provide information about Gigantos, so I removed them from the article as they are not important to understanding the plot. I reformatted and rewrote "Characters and setting" to remove references that are not attached to punctuation, remove information already stated in "Plot", added info about being a fantasy game and added info about the different species in the game. For Miranda, the game doesn't have a specific term for magic users but the source states in French that Miranda is a magician ("magicienne") so I changed it to that. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Quickest change was just to remove it; sentence works fine without it. Imaginestigers (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I haven't played this game, and the largest point of confusion for me (especially in Gameplay) is differences between dragoon form, and non-dragoon form. The image under this section does not mention which form it is, and the cover art is not sufficient as a differentiator. Consider: Does changing to dragoon form accompany visual changes to the character? The IGN source might be helpful to you in that regard. Is "addition" still available to the player while in dragoon form? The section is unclear, too, on what commands are replaced with Dragoon Attack and Dragoon Magic, and includes no information on how it differs. There is also no information on how dragoon spirits and spirit points are acquired (and if they differ). Is it through combat? Similarly, under Gameplay, At its grandest scale feels like puffery, and doesn't properly convey much to me, as a reader.

Added info in the Gameplay section about obtaining a Dragoon Spirit, how to obtain spirit points, the Dragoon Attack quick-time event and Dragoon Magic. I also clarified that attack, guard, item, and run are replaced with Dragoon Attack and Dragoon Magic, and added a sentence on how a character's appearance changes when they are in Dragoon form. The At its grandest scale was borrowed from Final Fantasy VII, and "grandest" in this usage is a synonym to "largest". Is there a better way to phrase that? Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Good work on clarifying the gameplay. As for At its grandest scale, I have no specific suggestions right now because I'm in a rush (see my comment at the bottom), but my hope is for it to become more neutral. Feel free to leave this and I'll investigate the phrasing myself later tonight. It might be fine if it’s in FFVII.Imaginestigers (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm leaving it be. If anyone else wants to change it in the future, they are free to do so (you included), but it isn't egregious. Imaginestigers (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   I cannot find the information for players explore the world of The Legend of Dragoon by following predetermined routes on a 3D map on the attached citation.

From the source, You must stay along the line that progresses you along to the next area. Should this be reworded? If so, what information was missing/confusing? Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Changed to done; this was my mistake. Imaginestigers (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

1. B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The game's instruction manual is cited on a few occassions, and it would be helpful to have a online link to that, if you can find one. There are some non-reliable sources used on the page, but these are permitted under WP:VGINT. The release dates are sourced correctly. MagicBox is a good source for sales figures.

Added a link to the instruction manual to every citation that uses it. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

1. C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No issues. There is one 88.9% confidence report of plagiarism on Copyvio, but the website has drawn from Wikipedia, instead of the other way around. For the second highest result, direct attribution is provided to the original writer, and it is relayed in Reception.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The IGN review mentions that the cinematics were a major drawing point of the game at time of release. In order for fulness, I would recommend that information find its way into the article.

In which sections should this information be included or expanded? Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Release is probably the right place for it (and it already mentions the cutscenes). It’s also acceptable in Reception, but Release makes more sense to me. Imaginestigers (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Made the change. Imaginestigers (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

1. B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The sections have a sharp focus and information is presented clearly. The Other media section is clearly within focus.

2. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Positive and negative criticism of the game is provided, with no unnecessary focus on either. Statements are correctly referenced.

3. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   The article is stable. There are no active discussions about whether to move or merge the article, nor are there edit wars. The page has 66 watchers and 292 average daily views (for a total of 6,127) as of October 13, 2020.

4. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:The Legend of Dragoon Addition Attack has has a low potential for copyright violation, is correctly tagged, with a caption related directly to showing gameplay. It was user-uploaded.

Is there anything I need to do for this section? Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing needed here. I tagged it incorrectly! Imaginestigers (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

1. B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall, a very competent article, well-written and well-supported. There are a few minor issues which prevent me from granting it an immediate pass.

Thanks for your comments! I have addressed most of the concerns above, and added some questions to clarify next steps. I look forward to implementing more of your improvements. I noticed your name was not listed at Wikipedia:GADRIVE2020 and I would love it if other editors could see and acknowledge your amazing work. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little busy during the day today, but I'll get back to you later tonight (around 7 or 8 hours from this response) with more feedback. I've included brief responses where I could. Sorry for the delay! Imaginestigers (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about delays, this is a really fast response time! I can't fix anything until tonight (about 7 hours from this response) so there's no rush. Thanks again for your quick comments! Z1720 (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I've made a bunch of changes myself to make things go quicker, including moving Setting and characters to before Plot (which makes logical sense to me). The article is in good shape. Congratulations! Imaginestigers (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Imaginestigers for reviewing this GA and your work on the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem! Good luck with all your future editing — this was good work! Imaginestigers (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)