Talk:Project M/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how the article currently compares against the GA criteria:

Is it well-written?: Only minor things to do:

Since the WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, there should be note of what reviewers liked about this mod there. FN1 (Wired) also is not needed in lead per WP:LEADCITE, and can just be used in article body.
Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, "Isn’t" should be "Isn't" in FN1.
"Ivysaur" should link to List of Pokémon (1–51)#Ivysaur
"causes a KO"..... for those who aren't familiar with the "knockout" acronym, this should be used in full form.
"SD Card" should link to Secure Digital
Bowser should link to Bowser (character)
Roy should link to List of Fire Emblem: The Binding Blade characters#Roy

Done all of these. I think I'd better head off to bed, though. Thanks for reviewing! Tezero (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All except for first point :P. My pleasure reviewing this, too! You've got until October 28th to resolve all comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, now that I look at it, the reviewers, as a whole, didn't really say anything they liked about it, just "Project M is good". That tends to happen with mods and fangames that fall under the mainstream radar and don't receive actual reviews. Tezero (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, especially after looking through the references more closely myself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it verifiable?: As a general note, the article also seems to rely heavily on the game's main website, which is a primary source. If possible, I would try to replace some of these with secondary sources. Either way, I have concerns about the following references:

FN7 (1UP.com) is dead.

Fixed. Tezero (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FN12 is showing its URL as a title- this needs fixing.

Fixed. Tezero (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For details on downloads, it would be better to have a secondary sources for FN's 17, 34, and 35 since primary sources have the potential to stretch such statistics.

Couldn't find any (and if there are any out there, this information is very likely taken from PMBR's website), so I've just rephrased it in terms of them claiming it's that much. Tezero (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it broad in coverage?: For something with a "legacy" section, there doesn't seem to be much on reviews.

Again, with reviews, it's as I said earlier. I've changed it to just "Reception", though; all that would really count as "Legacy" is the competitive usage. Tezero (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "legacy" didn't seem right for such a short section. However, there's some commentary from GamesRadar and IGN that could be added. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources were already in the article. I've added the GamesRadar one to Reception, but the IGN one didn't really give any opinions (other than that original Brawl was good); it was pretty much just a summary of interviews with the developers. Tezero (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, now passing! Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it neutral?: "Wario in Brawl took too much from the WarioWare games and not enough from the Wario Land games"..... without quotations around "too much" and "not enough", this statement doesn't come off as neutral. Either add those or change "The staff noted" to "The staff felt" preceding this portion.

Well, it does say "The staff noted". I've changed "noted" to "felt", though. Tezero (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it stable?: Nothing of concern here.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?: Both images are relevant, though the logo photo should list author(s) in its FUR.

Done. Tezero (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is on hold for seven days as the concerns are not extensive. Best of luck!

SNUGGUMS, opinions? Tezero (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the reception is expanded a bit with the URL's provided, this should be good to go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]