Jump to content

Talk:Xenosaga Episode III/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 08:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    Does the game ever explain what "AGWS" stands for?
    I've added that.
    I was going to say the first instance of KOS-MOS (in the first "Setting" paragraph) isn't Wikilinked, rather the third mention (in the "Characters" section) is. However, is seems unclear from the wording whether there are multiple KOS-MOS androids or only one. Can you clarify this? And Wikilink the first mention of the character KOS-MOS? The character is also mentioned in the second paragraph in the "Setting" section
    I've clarified; KOS-MOS the character is a prototype model of the KOS-MOS battle android line. Also, I've fixed it so the characters are wikilinked in their first mention.
    "a landmass that seemingly originating from Lost Jerusalem" - grammar error
    Fixed.
    "who tended him with he was injured" - same here
    Fixed.
    "reached #2" - change to either No. 2 or number 2 as per MOS:HASH
    Done.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Very close to passing. Placing on hold. Freikorp (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Freikorp: I've attended to all the issues you raised with the prose. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Happy to pass this now, though after re-reading I've noticed the year of release is not mentioned in the lead. I think that should be added. Freikorp (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]