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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 10:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): See below. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): No issues. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): No issues. b (citations to reliable sources): Sources that were spot-checked supported their claims. Extensive use of print and non-English sources; some level of AGF for inaccessibility of the former and translation of the latter. c (OR): No issues. d (copyvio and plagiarism): No issues. Highest Earwig percent is 9.1%; analysis is just picking up in game titles. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): A biography of appropriate scope. b (focused): No issues. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: No issues. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: No issues. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): One image, licensed BY-SA 2.0. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): The photo is a bit awkward-looking, but that's just how our image policy goes. I was unable to find any higher-quality free images.
Overall: Pass:
· · ·

Putting this and my other current review on 2O because I am clearly somewhere between grudgingly tolerated and actively unwanted on Wikipedia, and I should at least clear my head a bit and drop current obligations. I'm further into this review than the other, so notes to whoever picks this up: I was about to start an in-depth prose review, because a fair amount of the lead in particular caught my eye as wanting copyediting, but otherwise didn't have severe qualms with the article. Vaticidalprophet 10:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This review kind of... didn't, and I have no idea why Vaticidalprophet thinks anyone is against them, so I'll pick this up and review.

• Kawazu has stated that he was invited into the job by a school friend. - beats around the bush: "Kawazu was invited into the job by a school friend." Could also merge it with the preceding sentence.
• During his time with the magazine, he gained exposure to the industry and its products, originally writing reviews for various products - kind of awkward ("for various products"); could be rewritten more straightforwardly as "He started out writing product reviews, and during his time with the magazine he gained exposure to games and the video games industry."
• Despite the odds being against him, he applied for a job there. - tone; better as "Despite his lack of video game development experience, he applied for a job there."
• he was asked by Sakaguchi to make the company's new role-playing game (RPG) project Final Fantasy - "help make" or "work on", surely
• for the Game Boy, Square president Masafumi Miyamoto wanted to make their own version of it - could clarify as "their own version of it for the console", since they made an RPG but they did make it for the Game Boy
• following his resignation - confused me for a second, maybe clarify "resignation from the board"
• He would take over as executive producer of Final Fantasy XII in 2005 release after Yasumi Matsuno withdrew - "In 2005 he took over as executive producer of Final Fantasy XII after Yasumi Matsuno withdrew"
• "Career" stops after It's New Frontier (2009), but his credits not only say that was 2011 but then has 4 SaGa games that the text doesn't explicitly say he worked on (though maybe he didn't work on re:universe?)
• Following the troubled production of Legend of Mana, where he took on a supervisory role in keeping the project from cancellation, Kawazu decided that his main talent lay as a producer overseeing projects. - this feels like it would be better in "Career", where it would also have context of when it happened relative to other games he worked on. --PresN 16:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, PresN, thanks for picking this up. I dropped it during a very difficult period, and didn't pick it back up partially because reviews are difficult for me at the best of times (I'm more writer than critic) and partially because...well, I forgot. I'm deeply thankful you could get back to this. Vaticidalprophet 16:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vaticidalprophet: No worries, reviews are delayed for all sorts of reasons. --PresN 19:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN: I hope I've addressed all the points you raised above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, made a slight wording tweak, and passing for GA. --PresN 19:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]