Talk:Xenosaga Episode III/GA1
Appearance
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)
- 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.
- Does the game ever explain what "AGWS" stands for?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: Very close to passing. Placing on hold. Freikorp (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Freikorp: I've attended to all the issues you raised with the prose. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Freikorp: I've attended to all the issues you raised with the prose. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail: Very close to passing. Placing on hold. Freikorp (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)