Talk:Mother 3 fan translation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should leave some initial comments tomorrow! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:19, 11 July 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

Lead

"The final version was released in October 2008 and issued as a patch to be used with an emulator, a process of murky legality." - don't like this phrasing too much. How about something like "a process of" 'borderline', 'equivocal' or 'marginal'?
The lead summarises the article well, however I notice that there isn't much "reception" content in the lead, could you mention how the fan translation was received by fan and critics alike?

Development and release

"Members of the hacking team included Tomato, Jeffman, byuu, and sblur, among others" - umm, what/who are Byuu and Sblur?!
"with quality "on par with ... Prima and Bradygames"." - who are Prima and Bradygames?

Images

Whilst not a requirement for GA (and the lack of images will not have an affect on this GAN whatsoever), the article mentions some uses of a "fan-made, full-color, 200-page, professional-quality player's guide" and some 31,000 signatures! It will be great if any of these images were made available?

References

There are no dead links and the citations are in place, meeting with the GA criteria.
I notice that most of the development section is reliant on a single source (I mentioned this in the 'On hold' section), but I can't find this to be an obstruction with the GA criteria.

On hold (and further suggestions)

This is a well written, compact article containing few prose issues. The only problems I found with it are some balancing issues and a couple of things that need clarifying before this would meet the GA criteria. I also question the choice of referring to Clyde Mandelin and 'Tomato' throughout the article, but I can't see this as a concern! Also much of the development section is reliant on a single source, which I was going to mention in a references section but I can't see this obstructing the GA criteria. If those concerns I mentioned above are clarified then this article should pass the GAN! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar, made some updates—let me know what you think? I haven't found any one sentence overviews to expand the lede's reception, so I thought the copies downloaded and The Verge's summation would do. I could add more quotes about how reviewers found it fantastic, but I wanted to keep it neutral. (If I find more reception while I work on Mother 3, I'll add it in.) I haven't heard back from Fangamer about free-licensing their images but my usual method for handling that is to contact them after the article's finished so they can see how ugly it is without images. (There's also the issue of M3 copyright—I'd only be able to use their images that don't infringe on M3 copyright.) Anyway, I'm on it. There shouldn't be an issue with leaning heavily on one source—if there's a biography written about a subject and a bunch of smaller articles, the article relies more heavily on the major source. This said, the dev comes from both the Ars and UGO sources. I could mix in the primary source retrospective by Tomato if I wanted to get fancy. On Tomato and byuu, etc., those are the names they went by in the project and most sources, so I felt it was most appropriate to use those names. czar ♔ 23:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Thank you for addressing those concerns, I agree with you that the lead should be kept neutral, so it's better off as it is really. I also agree about the sourcing - it's better to rely on a major source than to risk using unreliable sources if there are any. You're doing a great job with these articles too, if you wanted to take it further then it could meet some of the FA criteria (which is tricky). Anyway this article now meets the GA criteria, so it's promoted! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 11:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]