# Talk:Garnet (Final Fantasy)

The "Love" section of this entry screams of original research.  If the statements are based off of comments from the game developers, they need to be cited.  But really, it smacks of someone passing off their fan-thesis as demonstrable fact. 40.0.40.10 06:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree; it should be completely removed and condensed to perhaps a paragraph in an overview of the character (using the script and perhaps developers information, if possible, to back it up). Ideally, this article (and other FF characters), should include a lead, development section, overview section, other appearences (if applicable), and references/see also/external links. — Deckiller 06:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoted dialog to back up the love section:
Steiner: "Red Rose!? Could it be...Beatrix!?"
Zidane: "Quite a woman, you fell in love with!"
Steiner: "You're one to talk!"
Dagger: "Wait a minute, Steiner! What did you mean by that!?"
Zidane: "...Alright! Let's bust through!"

This review is transcluded from Talk:Garnet Til Alexandros XVII/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 18:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I will take this review! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


### GA Review
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):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Ok, let’s go through it!
We need a nice, 2 or three paragraph lead to start with.
Done.
concept and creation should be paragraphized as well
Done.
Is there any more creation information about this character?
Nope, not that I have found.
From experience, any sentence without a ref at the end is in danger of getting a citation needed tag. What source does all that creation information come from? Please put a few more tags in there so it doesn’t get challenged
As far as this goes, all of the content comes ref 6. I used a single reference because all of the details tie into the same concept, of Garnet's hair and how she's portrayed before and after cutting it. I'll acquiesce if need be.
Should the image be in the appearances section? The article talks about it being her second appearance in the creation section, should it be there? I’m not saying it should, I’m just asking what you think
I put it there because I felt that the image squished the Concept and creation section too much.
Is any of this plot material sourcable?
When it comes to plot summaries, beyond sourcing that the character appears in the game, it's assumed that the game itself serves as the source.
USGamer should be italicized in the reception section, correct?
Fixed.
”Later in life, however, she acquired” it’s unclear if your talking about the character or the game reviewer
Fixed.
”they grew up seeing Garnet” who is they?
Ashley Barry.
”They noticed Garnet seeming happier” who?
Ashley Barry.
” They note that it combines two themes” who?
Fixed.
reference 2 has an unlisted author
Fixed.
what is the publisher of reference 4?
It's not published by anyone, it's a YouTube video on the official Final Fantasy account.
Ok @Abryn:, have at it! :) Let me know if you have any questions about this. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
” leading them to relate to her more” whose them?
Lucas. In this case, it should be assumed that the they/them refers to the last subject being discussed where such pronouns would apply.
@Judgesurreal777:
The problem @Abryn: with these “theys” is that they is usually plural, and you say it’s referring to this female reviewer. You need singular words to reference a single person. Or if it refers to the fictional couple, it needs to be clearer.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
They/them is actually acceptable for use with a singular person, where gender is not known. In this case, I've changed the she to they, as upon further inspection, Daniella does not identify their pronouns. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok but it’s still not clear, so can we use more of their names then? It’s not clear which person we are talking about in some cases in the reception section. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I mean, I think it's fairly clear; Garnet identifies with she/her, so they/them would automatically not apply to her, and thus it's fair to say that they/them is used to refer to the person who was just discussed. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I do not think it is clear. I can always withdraw and we can get another GA reviewer if you wish. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I mean, we can certainly just ask for a second opinion. That said, what do you find not clear about it? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Like this one: “ When her and her kidnappers' identities are revealed, the Queen orders her soldiers to attack the stage; however, they are able to escape” who escaped, the soldiers? The heroes?
Or this one “ She discovers the existence of a factory producing robotic Black Mages owned by Alexandria, which causes her distress. They escape to Lindblum” who escapes, the black pages? The two characters? All of them?
Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean, those absolutely need to be fixed, and are. I'm just referring to the usage of they/them in the Reception section, as I feel that there's no one those pronouns could refer to besides the authors. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I’m just concerned that in this case it gets tricky because the reviewers are discussing a mother and daughter relationship, and who “they” refers to in some of these sentences gets fuzzy, and the text for a GA doesn’t have to be brilliant, but it does have to be clear. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Grammatically speaking, however, it wouldn't make sense for they/them to refer to the collective of Garnet and Brahne, because they were not discussed until after the pronouns were used. Furthermore, in the same sentence, Garnet is referred to separately, so they/them could only refer to the individual writer or the writer and the Queen, and the latter would not make sense. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
[1] Good news, got verification. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
A+ work Abyrn! :) But the only one that is still fuzzy is this one: ”praising Brahne's passing and apology to Garnet as one of the series' most touching moments. They noted that it portrays a complex relationship” I think since you just named both the reviewer and the character duo you should say the last name of the reviewer for clarity. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Done, I also verified the pronouns of two other writers, but found it cleaner to just say the names. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I’ve found that too! Great work, great job making the article crystal clear! I’ll pass it now. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)