# Talk:Bullet Witch

This game got a 4.0 by IGN, shouldn't this be mentionated in the article? 201.229.239.54 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Done.  As a reminder to all, please don't remove content without providing justification.  150.113.7.99 14:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The official site link points to a page that no longer exists. Should it be removed, or still be left for reference?
Zet X Hikari (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bullet Witch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/blogs/BulletWitch_Informer/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613140507/http://www.gamespot.com/ to http://www.gamespot.com/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010619113409/http://www.ign.com/ to http://www.ign.com/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007112056/http://aqi.nct.jp:80/bulletwitch/ to http://aqi.nct.jp/bulletwitch/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bullet Witch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 12:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it reasonably well written?
I'd wikilink Gatling gun
"the scenario had a somber tone to suit its setting despite not being fatalistic" - can you elaborate on this at all; why would it be considered fatalistic in the first place? Maybe I've missed something but I find this confusing.
"The in-game cinematics were directed by Yasui. The higher graphical power of the console enabled a greater degree of character expression than Yasui's previous work" - I'd merge these sentences. They follow several very short sentences which begin to read awkwardly.
"#21, #7" - see MOS:HASH
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 
What makes QJ.net a reliable source? I can't seem to find any information about their editorial staff.
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage? 
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral? 
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable? 
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? 
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pretty close to passing, Placing on hold until minor issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Freikorp: I've addressed the grammar issues you pointed out. As to QJ.net (it stands for Quick Jump Gaming Network and it's been around since 2005), I'm using it for two reasons: it's an original source with information not found elsewhere, and it didn't raise comments in the FF Type-0 FA or my GA nominations for FF Agito and Tales of Destiny 2. If you still feel strongly about it, I can remove it, but its associated information will also have to be removed as that's the only real source for it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: I don't feel strongly about removing it partially because there's no reason to doubt what is attributed to it but also as it's the only source of debatable reliability; I'd be a bit iffy if there were several but since there's only one I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt. I'm passing this now. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)