GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Nominator: Kung Fu Man ( talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Pokelego999 ( talk · contribs) 12:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Will attempt to get this done in the coming days. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 12:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Kung Fu Man ( talk · contribs)
Sorry for the wait, let's get this rolling.
1. Article is well-written. Very few typos or spelling mistakes, if any at all.
2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.
3. Broad in coverage. Covers multiple aspects of the character in significant depth.
4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.
5. Article appears stable. No major vandalism.
6. The article is illustrated with three fair use images for Faust. All three seem to have valid uses and rationales.
-I feel the detail about the eyehole is uneeded.
-and drew reactions of being called "creepy" and "macabre" I'd shorten this to just "being called creepy and macabre by..."
-Add "game" after "the final" in the first paragraph.
-" however because at the end of the preceding game, they wanted to redesign his appearance to make it clear he was on the "side of Justice" what happened at the end of the preceding game?
-The bit about the bald head shine confuses me. Does Faust take off the bag for the taunt, or is this related to Baldhead's appearance in the first game?
-Looks good. Sources seem cited correctly.
-The GameRevolution, Destructoid, Eurogamer, and CBR sources seem trivial. The CBR one is also credited to Game Rant, for some reason. The TheGamer source on the lucky projectiles also seems rather trivial. Personally, these seem to be rather weak and more trivial mentions of the character than actual serious discussion, amounting to about a sentence or two per article of actual effective commentary. I'd either substitute these sources or just axe them entirely, though feel free to prove me wrong on any of them.
Article looks pretty solid, but the Reception issues are pretty glaring. Will put this on hold while you work on edits. Ping me when they're done or if you feel a point here should be contested, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Nominator: Kung Fu Man ( talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Pokelego999 ( talk · contribs) 12:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Will attempt to get this done in the coming days. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 12:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Kung Fu Man ( talk · contribs)
Sorry for the wait, let's get this rolling.
1. Article is well-written. Very few typos or spelling mistakes, if any at all.
2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.
3. Broad in coverage. Covers multiple aspects of the character in significant depth.
4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.
5. Article appears stable. No major vandalism.
6. The article is illustrated with three fair use images for Faust. All three seem to have valid uses and rationales.
-I feel the detail about the eyehole is uneeded.
-and drew reactions of being called "creepy" and "macabre" I'd shorten this to just "being called creepy and macabre by..."
-Add "game" after "the final" in the first paragraph.
-" however because at the end of the preceding game, they wanted to redesign his appearance to make it clear he was on the "side of Justice" what happened at the end of the preceding game?
-The bit about the bald head shine confuses me. Does Faust take off the bag for the taunt, or is this related to Baldhead's appearance in the first game?
-Looks good. Sources seem cited correctly.
-The GameRevolution, Destructoid, Eurogamer, and CBR sources seem trivial. The CBR one is also credited to Game Rant, for some reason. The TheGamer source on the lucky projectiles also seems rather trivial. Personally, these seem to be rather weak and more trivial mentions of the character than actual serious discussion, amounting to about a sentence or two per article of actual effective commentary. I'd either substitute these sources or just axe them entirely, though feel free to prove me wrong on any of them.
Article looks pretty solid, but the Reception issues are pretty glaring. Will put this on hold while you work on edits. Ping me when they're done or if you feel a point here should be contested, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.