Talk:Development of Fez/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should have this one to you by tomorrow morning... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for coming to this late. Unexpected parties... doing the review now... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Merger proposal

Has a consensus been achieved on the merger yet? I'm afraid the article can't pass if it is at direct risk of being merged, however since it is not, we'll rule this out this for now. Just asking if it had been solved as the template is still in the article!

Lead

The lead is a little on the short side as per most Good Articles and the GA criteria. Nothing too major, a small expansion on the history and design (as this is comprehensive in the article) would help a lot!

History

"Development continued with a more experimental ethos until the company began to run out of capital" - capital what? Investments? Income or their general financial strength?
"Polytron drew ire for the decision" - how about something like anger or frustration?

References

There are no dead links are the references meet the GA criteria.
All the citations are in their correct places, meeting the criteria too

On hold

Again this is a well written article and I found little prose problems with it, but on the other side of things there are only a couple of issues that stands in the way of it becoming GA. The short lead is one (the article itself is extensive so the lead could be expanded a little) and the merger proposal is the other. If all of those issues can be addressed to then this article should pass the GAN. Thanks! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: don't know if you have seen this but I also left a message on your talk page. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar, thanks for the review and ping! I expanded the lede. "Capital" generally refers to money or similar assets. (It's a little more descriptive than just saying they ran out of money.) Let me know what you prefer. And "ire" should be fine, no? The merge discussion went stale a month ago, so we're just waiting for someone to remove the tags czar ♔ 21:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Thanks for addressing them and expanding the lead.! I think you're right about those points, but anyhow this article meets the GA criteria. Since there is no risk of the article being merged it doesn't really matter. Anyway well done on another GA! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 10:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]