.

Expanding on the Chrono series?[edit]

Sentence in question: The game gives a unique take on the concept of non-linear branching storylines, which it combines with the concepts of time travel and parallel universes, expanding on the Chrono series.

While the press and RPG community have zealously identified Radiant Historia with perennial favorite Chrono Trigger, neither Atlus, Square Enix, nor anyone involved with the game has indicated that it is based on the concepts or gameplay of that title. As the gameplay aspect of the time/dimension travel of Radiant Historia has almost nothing in common with Chrono Trigger, and Chrono Trigger was not responsible for inventing the notion of time travel, the connection, popular though it may be, is purely speculative.

That being the case, it should either be documented that 'the game has been likened to the Chrono series', or it should not be documented at all. The current phrasing implies creator intention, of which no evidence has been provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.146 (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should be re-worded AND given a source because now it's only some editor's original research. Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, reading that part in the article itself, there IS a source for the claim. And I reworded it so it merely says it's "similar" to the Chrono series. That wording, especially with the source, seems correct. Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Wow, the guy who edited Radiant Historia in mid-January about a reprint in March 2012 was actually right... I wonder if it was just coincidence. (Sorry if this is off-topic, I just found this to be very interesting.) --Don't mess with the ROBOT (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPOILERS[edit]

Someone should put that there is spoilers in the history section. I got full spoiled myself of the ending. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.240.126 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. See WP:SW. Sorry 'bout that CarniCat (meow) 01:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok actually.That link gives no advice either way, just discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.181.58 (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it does. It says spoilers are allowed. They should not be removed or marked as "spoilers" or anything, because this is an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 10:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Radiant Historia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 11:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the ((done)) tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

Links

Prose

Lede

General

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments