Talk:Music of the Final Fantasy series/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Just a couple of prose issues:
    • Although the discography of the original game only includes soundtrack, best of, and piano albums, beginning in 2005 Square, now named Square Enix, produced a collection of media centered around the game and world of Final Fantasy VII entitled the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII. → the middle of the sentence (beginning in 2005...) really gets wordy and tries to mention too much. Adding additional commas I think would turn the sentence into more of a mess. Could this be rewritten so it flows better?
    • The last half of the "Chocobo series" paragraph needs to be rewritten. It seems to drone on. Try to be more concise.
    • Music from the series has also been played in specific Final Fantasy concerts and concert series. After the success of the 20020220 Music from Final Fantasy concert in 2002, a recording of which was produced as an album, the Tour de Japon: Music from Final Fantasy was launched in Japan in 2004, and followed by the Dear Friends -Music from Final Fantasy- tour in the United States that same year, which was originally scheduled to be a single concert but grew into a year-long tour. → Sentence is a little too long. Split into separate sentences.
    Good. MuZemike 18:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    There are too many parts that still remain unsourced. I have tagged all of the ones I saw with {{fact}} tags or with {{unreferencedsection}} (as listing the specific statements here would clog up this page too much). Please source them (for the more seemingly trivial facts, primary sources such as liner notes or information from Square would suffice) or remove them. The vast majority of unreferenced portions lie at the ends of the paragraphs.
    Making another error-check pass through with WP:REFTOOLS, you have multiple references which are given the same tag description: <ref name="EOT">. I cannot make this change as I don't want to inadvertently switch to the wrong reference. Can you please sort this out? Otherwise, the only other thing I see that needs referencing or removal before I give a thumbs-up here is the Others subsection in which I tagged with {{unreferenced}}. I also thought I tagged the first sentence in the Chocobo series subsection because I don't think the first citation reflects the content in the beginning of that paragraph. MuZemike 18:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    Good. MuZemike 02:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Well-covered. At least I cannot think about anything else that was left out.
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Normally, I would quick-fail due to the rather large amount of unsourced/unreferenced material, but being that this is a large (55KB) article, I will place on hold instead. The biggest thing that needs to be addressed is the referencing of those statements that need them (hopefully I didn't bork up anything else in the process). MuZemike 21:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Other stuff that I have noticed in the article and corrected (please use for future reference):

  • Consistency in commas in a series. Whether the North American or Oxford style is used, the usage of commas in a series must be consistent. I am assuming that the article is using American English, so commas must be placed before the coordinating conjunction in a series of items.
  • For clarity and brevity when giving a chronology, it's usually a good idea to list the release year after the first mention of the title. This lets readers follow the chronology better. It also cuts down on having extra words or sentences describing when the games were released.
  • I believe the spelling convention is Super Famicom as opposed to Super Famicon, though I personally have also seen it spelled with an "n".
  • Only one citation template should be used (in this case, {{citation}} as opposed to using {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, and {{cite video}}; they should not be mixed and matched.
  • If you're going to use citation templates, make sure they are being used in all references (notable exception being multiple references from a book, where specific pages/quotes are taken) to maintain consistency.
  • The formatting of the citation templates must be consistent. Also, look at my corrections in the article, more specifically here, to see how authors should be cited in the template. Finally, keep the date formatting consistent throughout, which in this article is YYYY-MM-DD.
  • Watch out for overlinking. Even in citations, only wikilink the publisher once; don't link for the rest. A good rule of thumb of linking in the article is once in the lead, once in the infobox, and once in the body.
  • Always check the redirects (via the "What links here" link on the left of the page) and make sure they are properly categorized and valid redirects per WP:R (you also may catch a "sleeper" malicious redirect sometimes).
  • I don't know if the timelines would get any flak over at WP:FAC, but I don't see a problem with them.

Hopefully the stuff that I listed above should also help in the event this article gets nominated for Featured Article status, which, being a critical Final Fantasy article, surely has the potential. MuZemike 21:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Alright, thank you very much for doing such an in-depth review, I really appreciate it. It's way more than I would usually get out of a GAN review, and will really help if I push this to FAC. I'll get right on fixing the issues you've raised. --PresN 00:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I think I've gotten them all now! --PresN 20:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, looks good. Passed. MuZemike 02:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)