Talk:Triforce/GA1

GA Review

Passed. NegativeMP1 18:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 07:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I just want to say great work on articles related to The Legend of Zelda, it's great that someone is dedicated to improving coverage on specific aspects the series. I reviewed your Master Sword nomination a month ago and we got it through, so let's see if we can do the same here. Expect a review within the next few days. NegativeMP1 07:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 (references): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

No signs of copyright violations. There's a 20% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector, but based on what it detected, I think this is a false positive.
No cleanup banners or still valid tags (ex. citation's needed)
No edit warring. Article is stable.
No past GA nominations, nothing to address here.
No quickfail criteria failed for what I am able to identify.

Rest of the review will take a little longer. NegativeMP1 01:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

I checked for the general criteria, and since a lot of it seems to pass, I just won't do a traditional sector by sector review here, assuming that's fine. I've already checked most aspects, and the baseline is, per the top:

Something like a game object has no set Manual of Style, so while I will be pointing a few things out that I find odd, I think we can make do.
No sources cited are unreliable.
Again, likely no copyright violations.
Seems to be focused. Major aspects appear to be covered.
The article is stable.

The prose, images, and spotchecking references will be addressed soon in depth per usual, though. NegativeMP1 00:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I couldn't find much.

Prose

I think that the section on Appearances in the main series could be worked on.
- "The Triforce initiates Link's adventures in the game duo titled The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages (2001)" How so?
  - Honestly, there's not much more to say here. The game footage shows the Triforce appear at the start of each game and then Link is sent down a wormhole and arrives at each land, which is covered in the article. I have added a sentence about how the games were intended as a trilogy with each game centred on a piece of the Triforce. Fieryninja (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The bit about Twilight Princess feels cut off. It's probably fine, but is there any more information on how it plays a lesser role in Twilight Princess?
  - Again, there's not much to add. It only appears on buildings etc and I have added a source to clarify. Fieryninja (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything more on Tri Force Heroes as well?
  - I couldn't find any mentions of the Triforce in the actual game so it's likely there is nothing significant. Fieryninja (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom bits could be one paragraph as they portray the same idea.
  - Done Fieryninja (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It was based on A Link to the Past but some story elements deviated from the game." → "It was based on A Link to the Past, though some story elements deviated from the game."
- Done Fieryninja (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any sources that discuss how the Triforce Slash was also Link's final smash in Brawl and Smash 4?
- Added source for Link and Toon Link in smash 4. Added source for Link in Brawl. I've searched for a source for Toon Link's final smash in Brawl but cannot find one so far. Fieryninja (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In Merchandise, since the Splatoon 3 Splatfest is already mentioned before, change it to "for the Triforce-themed Splatfest", since it's the only one.
- Done Fieryninja (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1999, the Triforce in Ocarina of Time became the centre of a hoax, which Kotaku described as "one of the greatest hoaxes in video game history". Despite being unobtainable in the game, a user account successfully convinced the Zelda fandom that the Triforce could be acquired, by posting a series of fake hints that were eventually debunked." → "In 1999, the Triforce in Ocarina of Time became the centre of a hoax, where a user account successfully convinced the Zelda fandom that the Triforce could be acquired, by posting a series of fake hints that were eventually debunked. Kotaku described it as "one of the greatest hoaxes in video game history".
- Done Fieryninja (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

There are only two images, one of which likely falls under public domain (hence being on Commons) and the other serves a visual purpose, backed up by sources. Believe that justifies fair use, and the rationale is fair.

References

All references that I checked seemed to verify the associated text.

Final comments

Honestly there isn't a lot that I noticed at first review, so this probably won't take too long. Placing this on hold. If there's anything I notice beyond this point, I can fix it myself. NegativeMP1 19:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NegativeMP1 thanks for taking the time to review the article. I also really appreciate your comments about the previous GAs. After this, I'm determined to get Link to GA status as I have been working on him for such a long time now. I have actioned each of your comments here, so please take a look through my recent edits. Fieryninja (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this seems fine to me. I am a little disappointed on the lack of information on some aspects, but there's nothing that can be done about that, and this article appears to put together all the information on the subject that is available. I'm giving this the pass, good job.

NegativeMP1 18:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.