Talk:Dragon Quest III/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC) In progress... ping me in a day or two if I haven't responded. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry for the delay. Overall, the article is in fairly good shape, though there are a few issues:

• Comprehensiveness:
  • I'm not entirely sure whether the very short development section (three sentences plus the music; the remakes section mostly covers differences, not actual development) meets the broad criteria of WP:WIAGA.
• Images:
  • I'm not sure what File:Dragon_warrior_III_battle_scene_snes.gif really adds per WP:NFCC, especially with its weak FUR.
• Prose:
  • I have no idea what "This is the final game in the Loto trilogy and is the first chronologically." means from the article, and it's not really explained later on in the article either.
  • There's two big problems with the prose, and one is puff phrases and redundancies. For and introduced innovations such as a persistent world with its own day-night cycle,[6] and an innovative class-changing system, "innovation" doesn't need to be used twice, and I'm not sure who's calling it innovative.
  • There's a lot of run-on sentences and comma splices in the gameplay section, of which The Hero's personality is determined by the player's choices and actions during a dream sequence at the start of the game, while other characters' personalities are determined by their stats at the end of the character generation process, most personalities are available to both male and female characters, while a few are exclusive to male or female characters. is probably the worst offender.
  • Why is the classes section after half a paragraph about classes earlier? Why isn't that information in the "classes" section, or vice versa?
  • Why are Baramos and a few other derivatives bolded? (WP:MOSBOLD)
  • If the setting comes after the plot and the latter is perfectly comprehensible without the former, I'm not sure you need a setting section.
  • and another "major innovation was the introduction of day/night cycles; certain items, characters, and quests are only accessible at certain times of day." - who is saying this?
• References seem fine, I'm going to do a spot-check later for accuracy/close-paraphrasing.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the great review! I'm working through the issues, it's amazing that the game that was Dragon Quests breakout has so little development! I'll update this when its ready for another look. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok I think it's ready for inspection! It is a world better than it was, I actually kept finding more development the more I dug. Let me know what else you would like. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay. I've finally had enough time to give it a good review, and I think that you've sufficiently addressed all the issues for GA criteria. If you're planning on taking this further I'd try and get more copyeditors involved, but good job fleshing out the content side of things. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)