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

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 17:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done anything with this article, I think. I'll take this up. It may take a few days though. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Just a few points I noted

• In the lead: the sentence "He expressed pressure due to First Strike being his debut as a director and thus elaborated on how difficult was creating the storyboard." I feel that the grammar could be better.
• In Reception: "Tales of Vesperia: The First Strike is a standalone offering, or at least one that might have done better had it focused solely on Yuri and Flynn and left the rest of the 'cast of thousands' far in the background.". I think maybe you should use italics for the film's title.
• If possible, I think you should add creation dates for Refs 6 to 9, 21 to 26. Authors are not essential, but where it can be done or it's not obvious due to the reference's title, I think you should add the author of the online article.

Once these are addressed, the article should be fit to sport the GA icon and be a part of the GA list.

Added dates. However, I can't find ones for refs 6-9

Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I think this now rates as a Pass.

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]